Description
During this explanation explicate journal of entrepreneurship education ismet anitsal.
Volume 18, Number 2 Print ISSN 1098-8394
Online ISSN 1528-2651
JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
EDUCATION
Editor
Ismet Anitsal
Tennessee Tech University
An official journal of the
Academy for Entrepreneurship®
The Journal of Entrepreneurship Education is owned and published by Jordan Whitney
Enterprises, Inc. Editorial content is under the control of the Allied Academies, Inc., a non-profit
association of scholars, whose purpose is to support and encourage research and the sharing and
exchange of ideas and insights throughout the world.
Page ii
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Authors execute a publication permission agreement and assume all liabilities. Neither
Jordan Whitney Enterprises nor Allied Academies is responsible for the content of the
individual manuscripts. Any omissions or errors are the sole responsibility of the
authors. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection of manuscripts for
publication from among those submitted for consideration. The Publishers accept final
manuscripts in digital form and make adjustments solely for the purposes of pagination
and organization.
The Journal of Entrepreneurship Education is owned and published by Jordan Whitney
Enterprises, Inc., PO Box 1032, Weaverville, NC 28787, USA. Those interested in
communicating with the Journal, should contact the Executive Director of the Allied
Academies at [email protected].
Copyright 2015 by Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc., USA
Page iii
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
Michael D. Meeks Joseph Aniello
Louisiana State University in Shreveport Francis Marion University
Robert M. Singh Stephanie Huneycutt Bardwell
Morgan State University Christopher Newport University
VijaykumarPandharinathWani Bill Laing
Mumbai Educational Trust's, Institute of Engineering Walden University
Benjamin C. Powell Kenneth J. Lacho
Appalachian State University The University of New Orleans
Dianne H. B. Welsh Eugene Kaciak
University of South Carolina at Greensboro Brock University
Laurent Josien Ganesan Ramaswamy
SUNY Plattsburgh National Foundation for Entrepreneurship
Development (NFED)
M. Meral Anitsal Matthew P. Earnhardt
Tennessee Tech University Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Archie Addo Lynnette Claire
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University University of Puget Sound
Fatima Sirelkhatim Sujata Mukherjee
University of Liverpool NMIMS School of Business Management
Page iv
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT & INTELLIGENCE AMONG STUDENT
ENTREPRENEURS………………………………………………………………………………1
Mark Shrader, Gonzaga University
Todd Finkle, Gonzaga University
FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS AND NEGOTIATION SELF-EFFICACY: A STUDY ON
NEGOTIATION SKILL BUILDING AMONG WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS………………17
Veronica Guerrero, California Lutheran University
Judith Richards, California Lutheran University
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL
UNIVERSITY……………………………………………………………………………………29
Charles Harrington, University of South Carolina Upstate
Ramin Maysami, Jackson State University
THE DRIVERS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS - AN EMPIRICAL STUD AMONG
INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDENTS…………………….39
Natalie Kaltenecker, Institute for Information Systems and New Media, LMU Munich
Christian Hoerndlein, Institute for Information Systems and New Media, LMU Munich
Thomas Hess, Institute for Information Systems and New Media, LMU Munich
THE ‘BUSINESS CONCEPT’ COMPETITION AS A ‘BUSINESS PLAN’ ALTERNATIVE
FOR NEW AND GROWING ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS: WHAT’S THE BIG
IDEA?.............................................................................................................................................53
Robert Laud, William Paterson University
Stephen Betts, William Paterson University
Sam Basu, William Paterson University
PUBLISHING CHILDREN’S BOOKS WITH INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS: REFLECTING
ON STUDENT INNOVATION THROUGH THE LENS OF TONY WAGNER……………..59
Stephanie A. Fernhaber, Butler University
Erin Albert, Butler University
Angela Lupton, Butler University
BUILDING A SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP
EDUCATION…………………………………………………………………………………….73
Astri Ghina, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung Institute of
Technology
Togar M. Simatupang, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung Institute of
Technology
Aurik Gustomo, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung Institute of
Technology
Page v
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
USING THE BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS AS A METHODS APPROACH TO TEACHING
ENTREPRENEURIAL FINANCE…………………………………………………………..….99
William T. Jackson, USF St. Petersburg
Daniel James Scott, USF St. Petersburg
Nathan Schwagler, USF St. Petersburg
DEVELOPING UNDERGRADUATE ENTREPRENEURIAL CAPACITY FOR SOCIAL
VENTURE CREATION……………………………………………………………………..…113
Erik Noyes, Babson College
Benjamin Linder, Olin College of Engineering
EFFECTS OF TRAINING METHOD AND AGE ON EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS OF
MEXICAN YOUTH ENTREPRENEURS……………………………………………………125
Héctor X. Ramírez-Pérez, Universidad Panamericana Guadalajara
Ann Marie E. Smith, Dowling College
Jorge E. Franco-López, Universidad Panamericana Guadalajara
Juana Román-Maqueira, Organization of American States
Elsa-Sofia Morote, Dowling College
ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAINERS – THE COMPETENCE MIX IN ACTION-ORIENTED
ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS………………………………….135
Øystein Rennemo, Nord-Trøndelag University College
BUILDING AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND EQUITY OWNERSHIP POLICY FOR
ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS: THREE DIFFERENT APPROACHES……………..151
David Rahn, California State University
Tammy Schakett, Ohio Northern University
David Tomczyk, Quinnipiac University
Page vi
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Page 1
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT & INTELLIGENCE
AMONG STUDENT ENTREPRENEURS
Mark Shrader, Gonzaga University
Todd Finkle, Gonzaga University
ABSTRACT
This study fills a gap in the entrepreneurship literature by investigating creative
achievement and intelligence within students who have been entrepreneurs. The study looks at
differences in the levels of creative achievement and intelligence between students who have
been entrepreneurs versus those who have not been entrepreneurs.
The study used the Creative Achievement Quotient (CAQ) (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins,
2005) and college entrance exam scores and grades as measures of intelligence. There were
several significant findings. First, students who had been entrepreneurs had significantly lower
college entrance exam scores. Secondly, students that had been entrepreneurs had significantly
higher CAQs. Finally, students that had been entrepreneurs performed significantly higher on
four measures of the CAQ: Architectural Design, Inventions, Scientific Inquiry, and Theater and
Film. The findings and their implications are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
According to the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity (Kauffman Foundation,
2014), since 1996, America’s overall business creation rate declined from .31% of American
adults per month starting businesses to .28% in 2013. People have been trying to understand the
causes for such a drop. Is it government intervention and/or regulation? Is it big companies
purchasing smaller companies? This research focuses on trying to understand more about student
entrepreneurs, creativity and intelligence. These relationships are all under investigated in the
field of entrepreneurship.
Much attention has been focused on the importance of creativity to the success of
organizations and individual careers. Creativity and innovation are essential ingredients that
entrepreneurs bring to organizations to create new products, services, and ways of thinking
differently that allows organizations to create competitive advantages within the global
marketplace. A 2010 American Management Association study identified creativity and
innovation as one of the four critical skills needed for business success today and in the future
(Schmidt, Soper, & Facca, 2012). CEOs identified creativity as the number one leadership
competency of the future (Bronson & Merryman, 2010). As a result of the increased rate of
change in technology today, creativity is a critical skill for recognizing and creating opportunities
to satisfy customer needs (Allen, 2012).
Despite the obvious importance of creativity to economic growth and welfare, Bronson
and Merryman (2012) noted a consistent decline in the creativity scores of U.S. students since
1990. Sternberg (2010) stated that the greatest problem facing colleges today in admissions,
Page 2
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
instruction and assessment is that administrators are locked into an archaic notion of what it
means to be intelligent. The U.S. higher educational system has relied on standardized tests that
measure cognitive and memorization-based intelligence for a long time. Unfortunately, these
tests have created a learning environment that rewards the traditional methods of thinking and
discourages creative thinking. The U.S. needs a better instrument to measure a student’s creative
ability. Furthermore, schools need to do a better job of fostering creativity within students in
higher education. But how can we do this? Sternberg and Lubart (1995) stated that a person’s
level of creativity could be developed in varying degrees. But what about intelligence? And how
does creativity and intelligence relate to entrepreneurs? It is evident that creativity and
intelligence exist in all people to varying degrees.
It is at this point that we investigate these relationships at a critical juncture; during a
person’s higher educational experience. Given the importance of creativity to the economy and
the field of entrepreneurship, we investigate two research questions that will assist us in
understanding creativity and intelligence within students that have been entrepreneurs. The first
research question is: Is there a difference between the Creative Achievement Quotient (Our
measure of creativity) of students that have been entrepreneurs versus students that have not been
entrepreneurs? We measure whether or not a student has been an entrepreneur by asking them:
Have you ever been an entrepreneur of a startup? The second research question is: Is there a
difference between intelligence scores for students that have been entrepreneurs versus students
who have not been entrepreneurs? A discussion of the findings and their implications follows.
BACKGROUND ON CREATIVITY
Creativity has been investigated by numerous scholars in fields such as psychology,
education, cognitive science, philosophy, business, linguistics, history, theology, sociology, and
economics. One result of this is that there is not a high degree of standardized thoughts on
creativity. Meusburger (2009) stated that there are over 100 definitions of creativity. Examples
include Boden’s (1994) assertion that creativity is producing something that is novel or different.
Barringer and Ireland (2012) and Gryskiewicz (1987) state that creativity is the process of
generating a novel or useful idea. Rhodes (1961; 1987) suggested that the definition of creativity
is related to four different potential areas: (a) the person who creates, (b) the cognitive processes
involved in the creation of idea/product, (c) the environment in which creativity occurs, and (d)
the end products of creative activities. An individual is regarded as creative if he or she solves
problems frequently and is capable of displaying content in a certain domain in a flexible and
novel manner (Gardner, 2006; Wodtke, 1964) and eventually will be recognized and agreed upon
by others regardless of culturally setting differences (Yi, Sulaiman & Baki, 2011).
Individuals who are creative in nature tend to utilize their cognitive and affective
resources and abilities to resolve difficulties and challenges in life (Helson & Srivastava, 2002).
Creative individuals are believed to exhibit a style of living and thinking that leads to a regularity
of breakthroughs in specific domains or disciplines rather than across the board (Gardner, 1993).
According to Gardner (2006), “Creativity is a characterization reserved to those whose products
are initially seen to be novel within a domain but are ultimately recognized as acceptable within
an appropriate community.”
Page 3
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Despite all of the definitions of creativity, there is no one set definition that we can use.
Amabile and Tighe’s (1993), theory of creativity stated that there are three basic components
within an individual that are required for creativity in any given domain or discipline. The three
components are namely domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills and task motivation.
Domain-relevant skills refer to elements related to the individual’s level of expertise in a specific
domain which includes basic intelligence or talent in the domain, knowledge acquired through
education, experience and technical skills in the domain. Creativity-relevant skills consist of
cognitive and personal styles that are important in producing novel and useful ideas in any
domain. The creativity component is task motivation where it involves one’s self-perceived
motivation for engaging in a particular task in a specific domain at a particular point in time. The
task motivation portion exists in two forms, intrinsically and extrinsically.
Creativity and Intelligence
Multiple studies have examined the relationship between creativity and intelligence.
Results have been mixed. Wallach and Kogan (1965) found no relationship between creativity
and intelligence in fifth grade children. Eysenck (1995) and Taylor (1995) believe that only
geniuses can be creative. Srivastava and Thomas (1991), Sarsani (2008) and Yi, Sulaiman and
Baki (2011) found a positive relationship between creativity and intelligence. However, Getzels
and Jackson (1962) found no relationship between the two.
Emami, Bardai, and Ismail (2013) examined the relationship between entrepreneurship
and IQ in the Graduates Bio-technology entrepreneurial program at UNIRAZAK. Their findings
showed that there was a weak positive correlation between entrepreneurship traits and creativity
and with leadership while the correlation with emotional quotient (EQ) was quite strong. The
findings also showed that EQ and IQ had weak positive correlations with creativity.
Amabile (1996) suggests that there is no relationship between creativity and intelligence
as measured through IQ tests or grades in school. Sternberg and Lubart (1995) suggest that
creativity is similar to intelligence in that everyone posses it in some (non-fixed) amount that,
importantly, can be further developed in varying degrees. DeBono (1992) also suggests that
creativity can be developed in individuals. These last two studies, combined with Amabile’s
(1996) results, have important implications for entrepreneurship educators. If there is no strong
direct relationship between creativity and intelligence, educational efforts to stimulate creativity
may be more successful across a broad spectrum of students.
INTELLIGENCE AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The relationship between intelligence quotient (IQ) and entrepreneurship is an
understudied area in the field of entrepreneurship. Few researchers have looked at how
intelligence affects the odds that a person will become an entrepreneur. Research on IQ has been
performed in other areas. For example, higher IQ is associated with higher earnings (See Bowles,
Gintis, & Osborne, 2001; Strenze, 2007; Jones & Schneider, 2010).
But how important is IQ when it comes to determining if someone becomes an
entrepreneur? de Wit and Van Winden (1989) and de Wit (1993) found that IQ scores, when
measured at age 12, had a positive significant effect on a person’s propensity to become self-
Page 4
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
employed later in life. Van Praag and Cramer (2001) examined 1763 schoolchildren and found
entrepreneurial talent was positively related to IQ measured at age 12.
Shane (2009) reports that students who got “mostly A’s” in college are about 2 percent
less likely than other students to be working for themselves. That is, better students were less
likely to become self-employed. For a lot of majors — foreign languages, computer science and
business — grades in college did not seem to have an impact on whether people became
entrepreneurs. In comparisons among graduates in these majors, the self-employed had
statistically the same grade point averages as those who worked in other professions (Shane,
2009). But for three majors — math, science and engineering, and statistics — the results were
different. Graduates in these majors, who ended up self-employed, did slightly worse in school
than those who did something else for a living. There was no significant difference between the
average G.P.A. of statistics majors who became self-employed. They had an average 2.76
G.P.A., while the whole sample was 2.84 (Shane, 2009).
Based on existing research, we hypothesize (H1a) that entrepreneurship students will
have significantly higher college entrance exams. We expect higher IQ scores to be associated
with students who become entrepreneurs. This leads to H1a:
H1a: Students that have been entrepreneurs will have significantly higher college entrance scores than
students who have not been entrepreneurs.
We also examined students’ current GPAs. Similar to Shane (2009), we are of the
opinion that just because a student has a high GPA does not necessarily mean that they are an
entrepreneur or have been an entrepreneur. As such, we propose the following:
H1b: There will be no significant difference between entrepreneurship students’ college GPA versus
students who have not been entrepreneurs.
CREATIVITY AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Entrepreneurship and innovative business behavior have long been associated with
creativity (Amabile, 1996; Nyström, 1979; Walton, 2003) and the two are often used
interchangeably. Previous research has been done on the characteristics associated with the
entrepreneurial mind-set. Hornaday (1982) listed creativity and innovativeness as a characteristic
often attributed to entrepreneurs.
In the business context creative novelty and appropriateness is often translated into idea
development (Ward, 2004), new product innovations (Amabile, 1996) and adapting or improving
existing innovations (Kirton, 1987). Methodologically, creativity in entrepreneurship and
innovation has been explained through cognitive processes, attitudes, motivation, existing
knowledge, work environment and personality traits (Amabile, 1996; Walton, 2003; Ward,
2004).
Creativity plays an important part of the entrepreneurial process where it integrates
within the opportunity recognition process (Figure 1). Figure 1 shows how environmental trends
(e.g., economic, social, technological and political) integrate with an entrepreneur’s personal
characteristics (e.g., prior experience, cognitive factors, social networks and creativity). As a
result of this intersection, the entrepreneur seeks an opportunity or problem in the marketplace
Page 5
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
and develops a solution through the creation of a new product, process or service. However,
creativity is important throughout the entire entrepreneurial process.
Figure 1: The Opportunity Recognition Process
Environmental Trends
Economic Factors
Social Factors
Technological Advances
Political and Regulatory Changes
Business, Product or Service
Opportunity Gap New Business, Product
+ ? Difference between What’s ? and Service Ideas
Available and what’s possible
Personal Characteristics
Prior Experience
Cognitive Factors
Social Networks
Creativity
Source: Barringer, B. & Ireland, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures.
There are also several personality attributes that have been shown to be traits of persons
considered to be creative: (a) tolerance for ambiguity, (b) willingness to surmount obstacles and
persevere, (c) willingness to grow, (d) willingness to take risks, and (e) courage of one’s
convictions and belief in oneself (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Wennberg (2004) stated that
preliminary psychometric creativity testing has indicated that there were greater differences
between students with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., entrepreneurship versus
engineering students). This leads to our second hypothesis:
H2: Students who have been entrepreneurs will have a significantly higher Creativity Achievement
Quotient (CAQ) than students who have not been entrepreneurs.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The sample consisted of 126 undergraduate students located at a private West coast
university. The students were enrolled in two entrepreneurship courses and three finance
courses. All of the students completed the survey except for two students who overlapped both
classes. They were only asked to take the survey once.
Procedure
The students were given the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (Carson et al. 2005)
(see Appendix). A few questions were added on measures of intelligence, demographics and
Page 6
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
whether the student had been an entrepreneur and for how long. The survey was 28 questions
long and the students had as much time as they wanted to finish the survey. The survey was
done in the middle of the semester.
The two part study was evaluated into three categories: (1) the entire sample; (2)
entrepreneurship students; and (3) finance students. For the second part of the study, we broke
down our sample into (1) the entire sample; (2) students who had been entrepreneurs; and (3)
students who had not been entrepreneurs. Utilizing t-tests and chi-square analysis, we examined
the differences between the sample populations.
Measures
One of the main issues in the research on creativity is whether to categorize creativity as
domain-specific or domain-general (Han & Marvin, 2002). Research (see Gardner, 2006; Yi et
al. 2011) suggests that creativity may be domain specific. Similar to intelligence being domain
specific in Math, English, Science, researchers have stated that creativity may foster within
specific areas.
This study investigates a proven measure of creativity called creative achievement.
Carson, Peterson, & Higgins’ (2005) study on Harvard University and the University of Toronto
students created a new self-report measure of creative achievement that assesses achievement
across 10 domains of creativity (Visual Arts, Music, Dance Architectural Design, Creative
Writing, Humor, Inventions, Scientific Inquiry, Theater and Film, and Culinary Arts). The
Appendix shows the achievements that the students were to rate. The directions on how to score
the questionnaire is also listed in the Appendix.
To measure intelligence we used two measures. The first was the percentile that a student
scored on their SAT or ACT college entrance test. Students were asked to report both of their
scores. These scores were then broken down into their respective percentiles. If both scores were
received, they were averaged. If only one was received, we used that percentile. Another
measure of intelligence that was used was the student’s current GPA.
Validity and Reliability
Carson et al. (2005) found the CAQ to be both reliable and valid and can provide a
criterion to efficiently measure and study the varied components of creativity. When they gave
the CAQ test at two different occasions to the same sample, all of the internal consistency
reliability scores for the 10 domains were above the .70 minimum standards for research
instruments (Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989).
Furthermore, Carson et al. (2005) characterized the CAQ by solid convergent validity,
when compared to other measures of creativity, including divergent thinking tests and
personality scales. Finally, they found that the CAQ demonstrated good discriminant validity
when tested against IQ indicating its separability from intelligence and proved unrelated to self-
enhancement, indicating that self-report scores on the CAQ were not inflated due to a desire to
inflate personal image.
Page 7
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
RESULTS & HYPOTHESES
Table 1: Characteristics of Students Who Have Been Entrepreneurs versus Students Who
Have Not Been Entrepreneurs
Table 1 shows there were a total of 19 entrepreneurs in the entire sample versus 117 that
have never been an entrepreneur. The average age for all of the students in the study was 21.5
years old with the entrepreneurs averaging 21.3 and non entrepreneurs averaging 21.6. There
were no significant differences in age between the two samples of students.
There was no significant difference in sex with the mean male percentage for the entire
sample at 66%. Sixty-three percent of the students who were entrepreneurs were male while 66%
were male for the students that were not entrepreneurs.
The survey broke down the year in school for the students. We found significant
differences at the senior and junior levels. Eighty-three percent of the students who were not
entrepreneurs were seniors versus 53% for the students who were entrepreneurs (p < .003).
Forty-seven percent of the entrepreneurs were juniors versus 17% for the non entrepreneurship
students (p < .003).
There was a significant difference between the average college entrance percentiles for
entrepreneurship students (74%) versus 81% for the finance students (p < .03). However, there
were no significant differences between GPAs.
Table 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN ENTREPRENEURS VERSUS STUDENTS
WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ENTREPRENEURS (N=126)
All Students
N=124
Entrepreneurs
N=19
Have Not Been
Entrepreneurs
N=115
P value
Age of Students (yrs) 21.5 21.3 21.6 .32
Male (%) .66 63 66 .79
Year in School (%)
Senior 79 53 83 .003**
Junior 21 47 17 .003**
Percentile SAT and/or
ACT
80 74 81.2 .03*
Average GPA 3.39 3.34 3.40 .41
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
It was hypothesized (H1a) that students that had been entrepreneurs would have
significantly higher college entrance scores than students who have not been entrepreneurs. This
hypothesis was not supported. In fact, we found a negative significant relationship where the
entrepreneurship students actually had significantly lower college entrance exams.
We also hypothesized (H1b) that there would be no significant difference between
students who had been entrepreneurs versus students who had not been entrepreneurs. This
Page 8
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
hypothesis was supported. There was no significant difference between grades of the two
samples.
Table 2: Creativity Achievement Quotient of Students Who Have Been Entrepreneurs
versus Students Who Have Not Been Entrepreneurs
Table 2 examines the differences in the Creativity Achievement Quotient between
students that have been entrepreneurs versus students that have never been entrepreneurs.
Additionally, the table examines if there are any significant differences between the 10
constructs that make up the CAQ. Overall, there were several significant differences between
the populations. The entrepreneurs had a significantly higher CAQ score (11.1) versus finance
students (6.9) at the p < .03 level.
There were four significant differences out of the 10 constructs of creativity that were
evaluated. Entrepreneurship students were significantly more likely to have expertise in
Architectural Design (p < .006); Inventions (p < .04); Scientific Inquiry (p < .003); and
Theater and Film (p < .005). There were no significant differences between Visual Arts, Music,
Dance, Creative Writing, Humor, and Culinary Arts.
Table 2
CREATIVITY ACHIEVEMENT QUOTIENT OF STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN ENTREPRENEURS
VERSUS STUDENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ENTREPRENEURS (N=126)
All Students
N=124
Mean
Entrepreneurs
N=19
Mean
Have Not Been
Entrepreneurs
N=115
Mean
P value
Creativity
Achievement Quotient
(CAQ)
7.5 11.1 6.9 .03*
Visual Arts 1.2 2.2 1.1 .12
Music .92 .61 .97 .47
Dance .50 .11 .56 .51
Architectural Design .18 .61 .10 .006**
Creative Writing .71 .44 .76 .38
Humor 1.2 1.3 1.1 .73
Inventions .98 1.8 .84 .04*
Scientific Inquiry .65 2.0 .42 .002**
Theater and Film .52 1.2 .40 .005**
Culinary Arts .63 .83 .59 .12
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
We hypothesized (H2) that students who had been entrepreneurs would have significantly
higher CAQs versus students that had not been entrepreneurs. This hypothesis was supported.
Page 9
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
DISCUSSION
This study evaluated data on 126 undergraduate students from a West coast university
during the spring of 2014. The study fills a gap in entrepreneurship research by looking at
differences in the levels of creative achievement and intelligence between students who have
been entrepreneurs versus those who have not been entrepreneurs.
Specifically, the first hypothesis examined if there were any differences between college
entrance exams and GPAs of students who had been entrepreneurs versus students who had not
been entrepreneurs. We found that current students that had been entrepreneurs had significantly
lower college entrance scores versus current students that had not been entrepreneurs.
Our findings indicate that there may be other factors involved in becoming entrepreneurs
besides IQ. Sternberg (2004) stated that successful entrepreneurship requires a blend of
analytical, creative, and practical aspects of intelligence, which he terms successful intelligence.
Furthermore, we propose that IQ alone cannot measure a person’s aptitude to become an
entrepreneur. There are many factors that are needed to become an entrepreneur that cannot be
measured through an exam such as motivation (or hunger/drive for success), ability to lead
others (leadership), ability to relate to others (social skills), creativity, vision and perseverance.
We also hypothesized (H1b) that there would be no significant difference in GPAs
between students that had been entrepreneurs versus students who had not been entrepreneurs.
This hypothesis was supported. There was no significant difference between grades of the two
samples. This finding is in tune with previous research.
Our final hypothesis (H2) found that students who had been entrepreneurs had a
significantly higher Creativity Achievement Quotient than students that had not been
entrepreneurs. This is supported in the existing literature. For example, entrepreneurship and
innovative business behavior have long been associated with creativity (Amabile, 1996;
Nyström, 1979; Walton, 2003) and the two are often used interchangeably. Previous research
has been done on the characteristics associated with the entrepreneurial mind-set. Hornaday
(1982) listed creativity and innovativeness as a characteristic often attributed to entrepreneurs.
Wennberg (2004) stated that preliminary psychometric creativity testing has indicated that there
were greater differences between students with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g.,
entrepreneurship versus non-entrepreneurship students).
Our findings show that students that have been entrepreneurs have a significantly higher
CAQ level. Furthermore, when we broke down our CAQ scale and examined each construct we
found that entrepreneurship students were significantly more likely to have expertise in
Architectural Design, Inventions, Scientific Inquiry and Theater and Film.
IMPLICATIONS
The U.S.’s level of creativity has been declining for decades along with its level of
entrepreneurship. How can we make a difference? We can start in the classroom by educating
our students more about creativity. Schools and instructors do poorly in providing environments
that spark creativity, rarely allowing students to “pursue projects that encourage them to develop
their creative thinking” (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991, p. 613). Creativity, despite its importance, is
Page 10
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
not generally rewarded in the classroom. Educators need to improve their environmental to
stimulate creativity in the classroom.
Hennessey and Amabile (1987) discuss the issue of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivators
and their effects on creativity. They state that they can be applied to any classroom at any grade
level. That is, creative people are intrinsically motivated to complete a task. Thus, educators
must be aware that, if they implement an extrinsic reward structure with these students, this will
undermine their intrinsic motivation. In other words, allowing students to pursue their own
passions should stimulate creativity within students. Runco and Nemiro’s study (cited in Runco
& Chand, 1995) suggest that motivation is important for creative thinking and that problem
finding would facilitate intrinsic motivation in individuals. In other words, students will be more
motivated when they choose their own tasks. This would make the task meaningful to the
individual. They further suggested that educators devote more time to problem-finding skills to
communicate to students that this ability is as important as problem solving. Often, though,
extrinsic motivators must be used to foster intrinsic motivation.
Hennessey and Amabile (1987) reported that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic
motivation and creative production. In addition, when students expect an evaluation, their focus
switches from intrinsic motivation to extrinsic motivation, especially if they are being observed.
Hennessey and Amabile cautioned that when convergent thinking is a teacher’s goal, then
extrinsic rewards can improve performance on a task. However, when students understand that
their teachers “value” creativity, then this message has a positive effect on creativity. Schools
also should have a continuing evaluation program to determine the effectiveness of their
educational programs in developing creative abilities in their students.
A developmental theory of creativity proposed by Renzulli (1992) suggests that students
should be provided with opportunities to engage in “ideal acts of learning” (p. 171). The learner,
teacher, and curriculum must all be involved for these ideal acts of learning to occur. Renzulli’s
major concern was in how educators can promote a disposition for creative productivity.
Renzulli (1992) stated that one way to enhance someone’s creative production is to have them
focus on their own interest. Their interests can be tasks or objects. Renzulli reported that the
more consistent and intense the interests, the more creative were the students (Fasko, 2001).
Torrance (1981) noted several signs that indicate when creative learning occurs, such as
improved motivation, alertness, curiosity, concentration, and achievement. The art of being a
great teacher comes into play here where teachers have the innate ability to read their students to
enhance the learning environment. The instructor has to realize the importance of positive
energy, being a mentor, role model and advocate for the students.
Sternberg and Lubart (1991) suggest that instructors give more long-term assignments to
develop students’ tolerance for ambiguity. Schools typically do provide a fertile ground for
students to learn to overcome obstacles. Schools, and specifically instructors, need to encourage
students more to take risks with their newly acquired skills. Taking risks is difficult for creative
students because creativity is not always rewarded with good grades (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991).
Perhaps this is due to the negative attitudes teachers hold toward creative students, which is
supported by the findings of Westby and Dawson (1995). Thus, educators must be more aware of
this potential negative outcome of their grading. Instructors need to emphasize that it is alright to
fail. Learning takes place during failure as well as success.
Page 11
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Creative people are rarely the superstars in any organization. Today, the creative work is
achieved by people that we are not aware of in most organizations. They are people with high
levels of creative thinking skills, expertise and are intrinsically motivated. Instructors must be
aware of this and structure their courses so that creativity flourishes. Instructors need to build
relationships with their students to understand their intrinsic motivations. Thus, they can serve as
mentors to the students and give them direction in their future entrepreneurial pursuits.
REFERENCES
Adams, K. (2006). The sources of innovation and creativity. National Center on Education and the Economy,
Washington, DC.
Allen, K. (2012). Launching New Ventures: An Entrepreneurial Approach. South-Western, Mason, OH.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Harvard Business School Teaching Note.
Harvard Business School Publishing. Boston, MA. 1-15.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). The motivation for creativity in organizations. Harvard Business School Teaching Note.
Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA. 1-14.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review. Sep-Oct, 76, 5, 76-87, 186.
Amabile, T. M., & Tighe, E. (1993). Questions of creativity. Creativity: The Reality Club 4. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Barringer, B., & Ireland, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures 4
th
Edition. Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Bowles, S., Gintis, H. & Osborne, M. (2001). The determinants of earnings: Skills, preferences, and schooling.
Journal of Economic Literature. 39, 1137-1176.
Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2010). The creativity crisis. Newsweek July 19, 2010.
Bull, K. S., Montgomery, D., & Baloche, L. (1995). Teaching creativity at the college level: A synthesis of
curricular components perceived as important by instructors. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 83–90.
Carson, S., Peterson, J., & Higgins, D. (2005). Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative
Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37-50.
Chambers, J. A. (1973). College teachers: Their effect on creativity of students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
65, 326–334.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011, March 15). How many successful entrepreneurs would fail an IQ test? Psychology
Today. Accessed August 4 from:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201103/how-
many-successful-entrepreneurs-would-fail-iq-test
Davis, G. A. (1991). Teaching creativity thinking. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted
Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 236–244.
de Wit, G. (1993). Models of self-employment in a competitive market. Journal of Economic Surveys. 7(4), 367-
397.
de Witt, G., & van Winden, F. (1989). An empirical analysis of self-employment in the Netherlands. Small Business
Economics. 1, 263-272.
Emami, M., Bardai, B., & Ismail, W. K. (2013). The interrelationship between entrepreneurial trait-E.Q (Emotional
Quotient), I.Q (Intelligence Quotient), ADHD (Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder), creativity, and
leadership talent. Journal of Entrepreneurship & Management. 2(1).
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The Nature of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 13, 3-4, 317-327.
Finkle, T. A. (2012). Corporate Entrepreneurship & Innovation in Silicon Valley: The Case of
Google, Inc., Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36(4), 863-884.
Freeman, J. (2006). First insight: fostering creativity in university performance. Arts and Humanities in Higher
Education, 5(1), 91-103.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. J. (1962). Creativity and Intelligence: Explorations with Gifted Students. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Page 12
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Gryskiewicz, S. (1987). Predictable creativity. In S.G. Isaksen (ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the
Basics. Bearly: Buffalo, NY. 67-75.
Han, K. S., & Marvin, C. (2002). Multiple creativities? Investigating domain-specificity of creativity in young
children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 98-109.
Helson, R., & Srivastava, S. (2002). Creative and wise people: similarities, differences, and how
they develop. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1430-1440.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1987). Creativity and Learning. Washington, DC: NEA Professional Library.
Hocevar, D. & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J.
A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity. New York: Plenum.
Hornaday, J. (1982). Research about living entrepreneurs. In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, ed. Calvin Kent,
Donald Sexton, and Karl Vesper (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 26-27.
Jones, G., and Schneider, W. (2010). IQ in the production function: Evidence from immigrant earnings. Economic
Inquiry. 48, 743-755.
Kauffman Foundation (2014, April 9). Kauffam Index of Entrepreneurial Activity Interactive. Kauffman
Foundation. Accessed October 8 from:http://www.kauffman.org/multimedia/infographics/2013/kiea-interactive
Kirton, M. J. (1987). Adaptors and innovators: cognitive style and personality. In S.G. Isaksen
(Ed). Frontiers of Creativity Research; Beyond the Basics, Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited,
282–304.
Meusburger, P. (2009). Milieus of creativity: The role of places, environments and spatial contexts. In Meusburger,
P., Funke, J. and Wunder, E. Milieus of Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Spatiality of
Creativity. Springer.
Millar, G., Dahl, C., & Kauffman, J. (2011). Testing the whole mind-educating the whole child. Alberta Teachers’
Association (ATA) Magazine. Accessed June 21 from:http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA Magazine/Volume-
91/Number3/Pages/Testingthewholemind.aspx
Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity through the pursuit of ideal acts
of learning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 170–182.
Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity
research: Beyond the basics (pp. 216–222). Buffalo, NY: Bearly. (Original work published 1961).
Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243–267.
Sarsani, M. R. (2008). Do high and low creative children differ in their cognition and motivation? Creativity
Research Journal, 20(2), 155–170.
Schmidt, J., Soper, J., & Facca, T. (2012). Creativity in the entrepreneurship classroom. Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 15, 123-131.
Shane, S. (2009, July 20). Do good students become entrepreneurs? New York Times. Accessed on August 5:http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/do-good-students-become-
entrepreneurs/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Srivastava, S., & Thomas, A. (1991). Creativity of pre-school children effect of sex, age, birth order and
intelligence. Journal of Psychological Researches, 36(2), 92–98.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful Intelligence. Plume Books. New York, New York.
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Successful intelligence as a basis for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing. 19(2),
189-201.
Sternberg, R. J. (2010, October 10). Teach Creativity, Not Memorization. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
fromhttp://chronicle.com.proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu/article/Teach-Creativity-Not/124879/
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). Creating creative minds. Phi Delta Kappa, 72, 608–614.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. New
York: The Free Press.
Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of
longitudinal research. Intelligence. 401-426
Taylor, B. (1995). Into the Open: Reflections on Geniuses and Modernity. New York University Press, New York,
New York.
Page 13
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Creative teaching makes a difference. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.),
Creativity: Its Educational Implications (2nd ed., pp. 99–108). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
de Witt, G., & van Winden, F. (1989). An empirical analysis of self-employment in the Netherlands. Small Business
Economics. 1, 263-272.
Van Praag, C. M., & Cramer, J. S. (2001). The roots of entrepreneurship and labour demand: Individual ability and
low risk aversion. Economica, 68(269), 45-62.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Nodes of thinking in young children: A study of creativity-intelligence
distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Walton, A. P. (2003). The impact of interpersonal factors on creativity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, 9, 146–162.
Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 173–188.
Westby, E. L. & Dawson,V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom. Creativity Research Journal, 8,
1–10.
Wodtke, K. H. (1964). Some data on the reliability and validity of creative tests at the elementary school level.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(2), 399-408.
Yi, H. Y., Sulaiman, T., & Baki, R. (2011). The role of multiple intelligences and creativity in students’ learning
style. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(8), 85-93.
Page 14
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
APPENDIX
CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
I. Place a check mark beside sentences that apply to you. Next to sentences with an asterisk (*), write the number
of times this sentence applies to you.
1. Visual Arts (painting, sculpture)
__ 0. I have no training or recognized talent in this area. (Skip to Music).
__1. I have taken lessons in this area.
__2. People have commented on my talent in this area.
__3. I have won a prize or prizes at a juried art show.
__4. I have had a showing of my work in a gallery.
__5. I have sold a piece of my work.
__6. My work has been critiqued in local publications.
*_7. My work has been critiqued in national publications.
2. Music
__0. I have no training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Dance).
__1. I play one or more musical instruments proficiently.
__2. I have played with a recognized orchestra or band.
__3. I have composed an original piece of music.
__4. My musical talent has been critiqued in a local publication.
__5. My composition has been recorded.
__6. Recordings of my composition have been sold publicly.
*_7. My compositions have been critiqued in a national publication.
3. Dance
__0. I have no training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Architecture)
__1. I have danced with a recognized dance company.
__2. I have choreographed an original dance number.
__3. My choreography has been performed publicly.
__4. My dance abilities have been critiqued in a local publication.
__5. I have choreographed dance professionally.
__6. My choreography has been recognized by a local publication.
*_7. My choreography has been recognized by a national publication.
4. Architectural Design
__0. I do not have training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Writing).
__1. I have designed an original structure.
__2. A structure designed by me has been constructed.
__3. I have sold an original architectural design.
__4. A structure that I have designed and sold has been built professionally.
__5. My architectural design has won an award or awards.
__6. My architectural design has been recognized in a local publication.
*_7. My architectural design has been recognized in a national publication.
5. Creative Writing
__0. I do not have training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Humor).
__1. I have written an original short work (poem or short story).
__2. My work has won an award or prize.
__3. I have written an original long work (epic, novel, or play).
__4. I have sold my work to a publisher.
__5. My work has been printed and sold publicly.
Page 15
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
__6. My work has been reviewed in local publications.
*_7. My work has been reviewed in national publications.
6. Humor
__0. I do not have recognized talent in this area (Skip to Inventions).
__1. People have often commented on my original sense of humor.
__2. I have created jokes that are now regularly repeated by others.
__3. I have written jokes for other people.
__4. I have written a joke or cartoon that has been published.
__5. I have worked as a professional comedian.
__6. I have worked as a professional comedy writer.
__7. My humor has been recognized in a national publication.
7. Inventions
__0. I do not have recognized talent in this area.
__1. I regularly find novel uses for household objects.
__2. I have sketched out an invention and worked on its design flaws.
__3. I have created original software for a computer.
__4. I have built a prototype of one of my designed inventions.
__5. I have sold one of my inventions to people I know.
*_6. I have received a patent for one of my inventions.
*_7. I have sold one of my inventions to a manufacturing firm.
8. Scientific Discovery
__0. I do not have training or recognized ability in this field (Skip to Theater
__1. I often think about ways that scientific problems could be solved.
__2. I have won a prize at a science fair or other local competition.
__3. I have received a scholarship based on my work in science or medicine.
__4. I have been author or coauthor of a study published in a scientific journal.
*_5. I have won a national prize in the field of science or medicine.
*_6. I have received a grant to pursue my work in science or medicine.
__7. My work has been cited by other scientists in national publications.
9. Theater and Film
__0. I do not have training or recognized ability in this field.
__1. I have performed in theater or film.
__2. My acting abilities have been recognized in a local publication.
__3. I have directed or produced a theater or film production.
__4. I have won an award or prize for acting in theater or film.
__5. I have been paid to act in theater or film.
__6. I have been paid to direct a theater or film production.
*_7. My theatrical work has been recognized in a national publication.
10. Culinary Arts
__0. I do not have training or experience in this field.
__1. I often experiment with recipes.
__2. My recipes have been published in a local cookbook.
__3. My recipes have been used in restaurants or other public venues.
__4. I have been asked to prepare food for celebrities or dignitaries.
__5. My recipes have won a prize or award.
__6. I have received a degree in culinary arts.
*_7. My recipes have been published nationally
Page 16
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Scoring of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire
1. Each check marked item receives the number of points represented by the question
number adjacent to the checkmark.
2. If an item is marked by an asterisk, multiply the number of times the item has been
achieved by the number of questions to determine points for that item.
3. Sum the total number of points within each domain to determine the domain score.
4. Sum all 10 domain scores to determine the total CAQ score.
Page 17
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS AND NEGOTIATION
SELF-EFFICACY: A STUDY ON NEGOTIATION SKILL
BUILDING AMONG WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS
Veronica Guerrero, California Lutheran University
Judith Richards, California Lutheran University
ABSTRACT
Entrepreneurial education includes the study of desired skills, knowledge and
competencies necessary at various stages of the entrepreneurial continuum as well as effective
pedagogies to address varying learning styles and modes of delivery. Women entrepreneurs
commonly lack key business skills and competencies their male counterparts developed from
professional experiences in corporate environments. This skillset includes negotiation efficacy, a
competence that may be pivotal to launching and sustaining a new venture. During the launch
period, venture financing, recruitment of management teams, and acquisition of resources
require astute negotiation skills to establish a business. Entrepreneurs who are unable to secure
the needed resources may never be able to move their venture beyond the conceptual stage.
Studies show that women face greater challenges than men in securing venture financing and
human capital resources. Therefore, greater negotiation efficacy could prove useful for women
entrepreneurs during this resource building process. This study will explore how women
entrepreneurs can develop increased levels of negotiation self-efficacy to maximize outcomes as
they establish their businesses.
INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship has long been established as a vital component of a growing economy.
In 2011, over 543,000 businesses were created each month (Fairlie, 2012). In the United States,
10.4 percent of the female population between 18-64 years of age are nascent entrepreneurs or
current owners or managers of a business (Kelley, 2011). Women owned businesses account for
$1.2 trillion in sales/receipts and employed 7.6 million workers (Administration, 2010). Such a
powerful economic force requires a myriad of resources. This includes effective training and
development programs. Key stakeholders of this economic force continuously seek to understand
the educational needs of female entrepreneurs, including curriculum requirements, effective
teaching pedagogies, learning assessments, and modes of content delivery (A. C. L. Martinez,
Jonathan; Kelley, Donna J.; Rognvaldur, Saemundsson J.; Schott, Thomas, 2008; Terjesen &
Elam, 2012).
While a growing number of universities now offer degree programs in entrepreneurship,
there are countless entrepreneurial training programs available to both nascent and seasoned
entrepreneurs offered outside academic institutions (A. C. L. Martinez, Jonathan; Kelley, Donna
J.; Rognvaldur, Saemundsson J.; Schott, Thomas, 2008). These programs provide entrepreneurs
with the knowledge, skills and competencies necessary to launch, grow and sustain
entrepreneurial endeavors (Raposo, 2011). Negotiation is a specific interpersonal skill in the
development of social competence and has been recognized as an important skillset for
entrepreneurs (Hoehn-Weiss, Brush, & Baron, 2004). Negotiation skills are typically taught with
Page 18
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
in the context of leadership, communication or conflict management courses (Roy Lewicki,
1997). Due to this recognized skillset, a growing number of universities and professional
training centers now offer negotiation skill building courses and seminars (Kenworthy, 2010;
Thompson & Leonardelli, 2004).
Female entrepreneurs who lack career experiences where the skill of negotiation is
commonly practiced and developed can find the process of negotiation to be intimidating and a
significant obstacle to overcome in the pursuit of their entrepreneurial endeavors (D. M. Kolb,
2009; Martinez, 2008). As such, female entrepreneurs often lack confidence when entering a
situation in the development of their business that requires astute negotiation skills. This impacts
their ability to initiate the behaviors necessary to achieve successful outcomes in negotiating for
resources to support their business.
Self-efficacy has emerged as a proven construct to evaluate learning and change (A.
Bandura, 2012). Self-efficacy is based on Social Learning Theory and can be explained as the
confidence an individual has for persevering through specific tasks in order to achieve desired
performance outcomes (A. Bandura, 1999). The entrepreneurial self-efficacy construct has been
utilized in the field of entrepreneurship education (Hao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005; Wilson, Kickul,
& Marlino, 2007; Wilson, Kickul, Marlino, Barbosa, & Griffiths, 2009). However, there is little
research available on negotiation self-efficacy among female entrepreneurs. This study will
focus on the development of negotiation skills among women entrepreneurs in order to increase
negotiation self-efficacy in their entrepreneurial endeavors.
This research will address the following questions:
1) How do female entrepreneurs assess their confidence in their negotiation skills?
2) What can educators do to increase entrepreneurial negotiation self-efficacy among
women entrepreneurs?
3) What specific task areas among distributive and integrative negotiation strategies
can be most impacted by negotiation skill building?
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Entrepreneurial Education
According to a Special Report by the Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (A.
C. L. Martinez, Jonathan; Kelley, Donna J.; Rognvaldur, Saemundsson J.; Schott, Thomas,
2008), entrepreneurship education is defined as “the building of knowledge and skills either
‘about’ or ‘for the purpose of’ entrepreneurship generally, as part of recognized education
programs at primary, secondary and tertiary-level educational institutions” (p.8). The study of
entrepreneurial education has explored the skills, knowledge and competency needs of
entrepreneurs, as well as learning styles, effective pedagogies and modes of delivery (Honig,
2004; Kuratko, 2005; A. C. L. Martinez, Jonathan; Kelley, Donna J.; Rognvaldur, Saemundsson
J.; Schott, Thomas, 2008; Neck & Greene, 2011; Plumly et al., 2008; Sexton & Bowman, 1984;
Solomon, Fernald, & Dennis, 2003).
Page 19
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Within these areas, the gender-based education needs among entrepreneurs has been
explored extensively (Birley, Moss, & Saunders, 1987). Despite the stronger educational background
of today’s female entrepreneurs, the need for viable and effective educational opportunities to
support their endeavors continues to surface as a critical need (Bowen & Hisrich, 1986; Terjesen &
Elam, 2012). The educational needs include competence in conflict resolution, interpersonal skills
and social competence (Hoehn-Weiss et al. 2004; Plumly et al. 2008).
Gender, Negotiation & Entrepreneurs
Research in the area of gender and negotiation spans almost four decades (Deborah M. Kolb,
2009). Studies find gendered influence in negotiation situations favors men and negatively impacts the
outcomes achieved by women (Miles & Clenney, 2010). Over time, research exploring gender
influence in negotiations has shifted from a focus on female and male behavior differences and
stereotypes to a broader analysis of situational and organizational norms and values (Deborah M.
Kolb, 2009). This new direction explores the nuances of organizational behaviors and structures and
the impact these factors play into negotiation outcomes (Kolb & McGinn, 2009). Through this
perspective, the gendered role of an entrepreneur and its impact on women-owned businesses can be
explored.
Numerous studies provide a context for the gendered role of the entrepreneur (Brush, 1992;
Brush, de Bruin, & Welter, 2009; Brush, Wong-MingJi, & Sullivan, 1999; Gatewood, Brush, Carter,
Greene, & Hart, 2009; Hisrich & Brush, 1984; Manolova, Brush, Edelman, & Shaver, 2012). Similar
to negotiation situations, women entrepreneurs are competing in a landscape dominated by masculine
norms and values (Brush, 2002; Brush et al. 2009; Brush et al. 1999). The gendered role perceptions
are especially challenging for women as they strive to negotiate new venture funding (Nelson,
Maxfield, & Kolb, 2009). Women-owned businesses receive a disproportionate amount of financing
through the venture capital process (Brush, 2002). Most recently, Nelson et al. (2009) explored the
gendered role of entrepreneurs and the impact on venture capital financing. The study found gendered
norms within the venture capital landscape to favor the male entrepreneur. As such, women
entrepreneurs are challenged to assimilate into the culture of the venture capital funding process and
successfully obtain financing for their business (Nelson et al. 2009). This assimilation requires
increased confidence in their ability to negotiate at every stage of a very complex process.
Negotiation Styles, Strategies and Tactics
In a negotiation situation, distributive tactics are used to gain concessions from the other
party plus as much of the potential resources as possible; whereas, integrative tactics involve trade-
offs and satisfying the interests of all the negotiation participants (Tak Wing Yiu; Sai On Cheung,
2012). Distributive situations are also known as zero-sum or win-lose negotiations, whereas one
individual obtains their goal while the other person fails to achieve their respective goal (RJ Lewicki,
Barry, & Saunders, 2011). Conversely, integrative situations are associated with non-zero sum or
win-win negotiation scenarios where both parties can meet or exceed their targeted goal outcomes
(RJ Lewicki et al., 2011). Generally, integrative or collaborative skills are involved in value-creation
which occurs first, while distributive or competitive tactics are employed in the value-claiming stage
which follows (RJ Lewicki et al. 2011). Normally negotiation involves a process of engaging in a
combination of both creating and claiming value strategies (RJ Lewicki et al. 2011). Therefore, it is
imperative that negotiators comprehend how to both create and claim value in order to maximize
their targeted goal outcomes and refrain from leaving unclaimed value on the bargaining table.
Page 20
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Gender stereotypes categorize the male negotiator as strong, dominant, assertive plus rational
versus the female as weak, submissive, accommodating and emotional (Hames, 2011). Women
behave more collaboratively in negotiations and view negotiation in terms of ongoing relationships
with greater concern for feelings and emotions. Thus, women may settle for lower outcomes than
men as a result of their concern for preservation of the relationship. Men tend to utilize more
persuasive tactics, which results in better outcomes than their female counterparts (Stuhlmacher &
Walters, 1999). Amanatullah et al (2010) found that women negotiating on their own behalf are less
assertive, perhaps due to fear of backlash or negative implications. Consequently, women tend to
employ fewer competitive tactics and realize lower outcomes.This is especially relevant for female
entrepreneurs who negotiate on their own behalf.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is at the center of social learning theory developed by Albert Bandura (A.
Bandura, 1977), and has long been a construct used in numerous research studies to evaluate
pedagogical effectiveness (Brady-Amoon & Fuertes, 2011; Celuch, Kozlenkova, & Black, 2010;
Pollack & Lilly, 2008; Sargent, Borthick, & Lederberg, 2011). Bandura (1977) defines self- efficacy
as “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes (p.
79).” The theory provides a basis for predicting behavioral changes and is a proven construct to study
learning and change among adult learners (A. Bandura, 2012).
Self-efficacy is focused on task specific actions taken by an individual to achieve a desired
outcome. An individual’s self-efficacy for a specified task or series of tasks will determine the level of
effort and perseverance put forth in completing the task. According to Bandura (1986), there are
multiple levels of self-efficacy, which include task specific efficacy, domain efficacy, and general or
global efficacy. Key to perceived self-efficacy is one’s knowledge, skills and competencies for a
specific task or task domain. Accordingly, an individual’s perceived competence across a range of
skills and capabilities for a specific task or task domain will impact their behavior for achieving
desired performance levels (A. Bandura, 1986).
Bandura explains, “Performances that call for ingenuity, resourcefulness, and adaptability
depend more on adroit use of skills and specialized knowledge than on effort (P. 371).” Further, the
ambiguity and unpredictability of certain situations may have an impact on an individual’s predicted
performance of a specific task or task domain. Sustained performance for complex tasks, such as
negotiations, that are challenging, that require great effort, and that are not easily replicated may not
automatically strengthen an individual’s perceived self-efficacy (A. Bandura, 1986). Individual self-
efficacy depends on one’s belief that they are able to consistently perform at desired levels with
shifting situational factors (A. Bandura, 2012). Due to the complex and ambiguous nature of
negotiations, self-efficacy theory lends itself well to the evaluation of learning and skill development
to predict an individual’s negotiation performance and belief in their ability to continually and
proactively engage in negotiation opportunities (Roy Lewicki,1997).
Bandura explains, “Performances that call for ingenuity, resourcefulness, and adaptability
depend more on adroit use of skills and specialized knowledge than on effort (P. 371).” Further, the
ambiguity and unpredictability of certain situations may have an impact on an individual’s predicted
performance of a specific task or task domain. Sustained performance for complex tasks, such as
negotiations, that are challenging, that require great effort, and that are not easily replicated may not
automatically strengthen an individual’s perceived self-efficacy (A. Bandura, 1986). Individual self-
efficacy depends on one’s belief that they are able to consistently perform at desired levels with
shifting situational factors (A. Bandura, 2012). Due to the complex and ambiguous nature of
Page 21
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
negotiations, self-efficacy theory lends itself well to the evaluation of learning and skill development
to predict an individual’s negotiation performance and belief in their ability to continually and
proactively engage in negotiation opportunities (Roy Lewicki, 1997).
Mastery of the set of skills and competencies associated with the task will determine the level
of perceived efficacy an individual possesses. Personal mastery can be developed through a series of
experiential activities, social modeling, and verbal persuasion (A. Bandura, 2012). Researchers have
explored the utilization of negotiation self-efficacy to improve sustained individual performance
levels for this complex task domain (Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Miles & Maurer, 2012). The
variety of elements and skills required of the negotiation process combined with interdependence of
individuals involved in a negotiation situation makes learning and mastery of the task domain a
fairly complex and lengthy process.
In a recent study, Miles and Maurer (2012) explored negotiation skill self-efficacy at the
domain level with promising results. Their research concluded that domain level self-efficacy may
be an effective measurement of negotiation self-efficacy due to the complex nature of the tasks
involved and the dynamic, unpredictable nature of negotiation situations. (A. Bandura, 2012).
“In the prototypical self-efficacy paradigm, people judge their efficacy in advance over a
wide range of task demands within a meaningful domain of functioning. This assessment procedure
is designed to identify the pattern, strength and upper limits of perceived self-efficacy (A. Bandura,
1986), P.362.”
Therefore, learning environments that provide opportunities for individuals to participate in
simulated negotiation situations and receive constructive feedback on their performance can be useful
to increasing individual self-efficacy for the negotiation task domain (Gist et al., 1991; Stevens &
Gist, 1997). Activities which support the development of knowledge, skills and competencies in the
specific tasks involved in negotiation (interpersonal communications, empathy, assertiveness, etc.)
may support success in mastery level experiences (Miles & Maurer, 2012). This can be highly
relevant for women entrepreneurs who struggle with confidence and efficacy among complex
entrepreneurial-related tasks and situations (Terjesen & Elam, 2012). “For women, however, the
most significant factors predicting new business activity are perceptions of the self and the
environment, including confidence, expectation of opportunities and fear of failure” (Terjesen &
Elam, 2012, p.17). Female entrepreneurs tend to actively seek educational opportunities to develop
the skills they associate with entrepreneurial success (Wilson et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2009). As
such, educational environments that provide opportunities for women to actively practice and
develop the tasks and behaviors associated with negotiation skills should support the negotiation self-
efficacy development of these entrepreneurial women.
METHODOLOGY
Sample & Data Collection
To collect data for this study, a negotiation skills workshop was developed and offered to
clients of a local nonprofit organization supporting female entrepreneurs. Each workshop was
scheduled for two hours and included a one-hour lecture, a case study role-play simulation and a
debriefing discussion. An announcement was sent out to current clients of the organization inviting
women to sign up for this skill development workshop. Each workshop was limited to 20
participants and the roster was filled on a first-come, first serve basis. There was no charge to attend
the workshop. The absence of a fee helped to drive participation, as most other educational
opportunities offered through the organization are fee-based.
Page 22
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The one-hour interactive lecture on the fundamentals of negotiation included: Strategies of
distributive bargaining, the integrative negotiation process, closing the deal, goals, strategy, planning,
plus creating and claiming value (RJ Lewicki et al., 2011). Thereafter, participants were randomly
placed in triads and asked to study their assigned roles and script in preparation for a negotiation
exercise, WineMaster.com (Subramanian, 2000). The effectiveness of negotiation entrepreneurship
training can be enhanced when an approach is taken in which students’ participate in working
effectively in teams while exercising analytical and communication skills (Plumly et al. 2008). The
role-play involved the potential sale of an e- commerce company, WineMaster.com from its
three entrepreneur owners to a larger e- commerce company, HomeBase, looking to expand
their product-line (Subramanian, 2000). A one-hour time constraint was imposed. To assist the
attendees in engaging in additional preparation that encompassed identifying needs, priorities,
resources and constraints, a planning tool was provided to them entitled, Planning for
Negotiations (R. J. Lewicki, Saunders, & Minton, 2010). In addition, a Deal Value Calculation
Worksheet was provided to the WineMaster.com team while an Acquisition Cost Calculation
Worksheet was distributed to the HomeBase team (Subramanian, 2000). There were four issues to be
negotiated: (1) Number of Shares. (2) Vesting for stock shares. (3) Board Seat. (4) Ownership of a
lawsuit (Subramanian, 2000).
The Negotiation Simulation for the First Workshop
The role-play provided to participants at the first Workshop proved to be too complex for the
entrepreneurs, which struggled with the financial aspects of the exercise that consisted of determining
opening offers, targets, and resistance points (RJ Lewicki et al., 2011). The target point would be
where the team realistically expected to achieve a settlement while a resistance or walk-away point is
where the team would decide that they should stop the negotiation rather than continue (R. J.
Lewicki, Barry, Bruce, Saunders, David M., 2010). None of the teams were able to finalize an
agreement within the time constraints.
The Negotiation Simulation for the Second Workshop
Given the time constraint plus the level of difficulty for the entrepreneurs at the first workshop,
the following changes were incorporated into the second workshop: (1) The respective teams
were provided with their specific walk-away financial targets, thus establishing a zone of possible
agreement (Subramanian, 2000). (2) One of the issues was eliminated, i.e., the ownership of a
potential existing lawsuit against WineMaster.com source. The modifications proved beneficial as
two of the three teams achieved satisfactory outcomes within the zone of possible agreement. The
third group ended the simulation with an impasse because the women were unable to employ neither
satisfactory concessions nor closing techniques.
Measures
A self-efficacy scale was designed to measure the strength of the participants’ perceived
degree of confidence in performing negotiation tactics on a 100-point scale (Bandura, 2006a). The
descriptors utilize single unit intervals ranging from 0 to 100, with 0 equating to cannot do at all, 50
moderately can do and 90-100 signifying they are highly certain they can do (Bandura, 2006b).
The statements included in the self-efficacy scale identify negotiation tactics that are either
distributive or integrative (Tak Wing Yiu; Sai On Cheung, 2012). Question numbers 1 through 5
are associated with distributive negotiating tactics, while questions 6 through 10 are associated with
Page 23
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
integrative negotiating tactics. Self-efficacy has been proven to be a powerful influence affecting
negotiators’ behaviors concerning the different outcomes achieved when distributive or integrative
strategies are employed (Sullivan, 2006).
Participants completed the surveys at the very beginning of the workshop and then were asked
to complete the survey again at the end of the workshop. The survey was paper-based for the first
workshop. All 19 participants completed both the pre and post surveys. At the second workshop, the
surveys were administered online which provided several advantages including, time benefits for
both administration and access to the data for evaluation purposes (Keller, 2012). Twenty-three
of the participants completed the pre-survey and twenty completed the post survey. Pre and post
survey instruments included both open and closed-ended questions. The closed-ended questions
included Likert scales while the open-ended questions were completely unstructured (Keller, 2012).
The design provided participants of the workshops the opportunity to reflect on the learning
experience. In all, 42 women participated in the workshops though not all completed the post-survey.
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Eighty-eight percent of respondents indicated they had not had prior training in negotiations
before taking the workshop. Despite the lack of negotiation training, 91percent of the participants
agreed that negotiation skills were important to them in achieving their career and/or personal
goals. Sixty-six percent of the participants indicated that they engaged in frequently in negotiations
(daily to weekly) and 24 percent indicated being involved in negotiations somewhat frequently
(monthly). The most common type of negotiation situations encountered by the entrepreneurs for
both workshops consisted of: (1) Hiring employees/Job Offer. (2) Vendor or Job Contracts. (3)
Customer Pricing. (4) Financial funding.
After taking the workshop, 87% of the women indicated they either Agree or Strongly Agree
with the statement “When engaging in negotiations, I could be described as confident.” In the pre-
survey, only 54% of the women Agree or Strongly Agree with this statement. Further,
83% of the participants either Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “When engaging in
negotiations, I am likely to achieve my outcome goals” in the post-survey as opposed to 50% in the
pre-survey. These increases support a perceived increase in the efficacy development among the
participants within the negotiation skill domain.
There was very little shift in response to the statement “The relationship is more
important to me than the outcome when I engage in workplace negotiations.” In the pre-survey,
50% of the women indicated they Agree or Strongly Agree with the statement compared to 55% in
the post-survey. This aligns with previous research on the tendencies of women in negotiation
situations (Hames, 2011). Interestingly, 79% of the participants indicated they Agree or Strongly
Agree with the statement “When engaging in negotiations, I could be described as effective in
managing my emotions” in the post survey as opposed to 43% in the pre-survey. This is a significant
shift and could be indicate a realization of how emotions impact their effectiveness in negotiating for
their business.
Overall, the participants appeared to develop confidence in utilizing distributive strategies
and understanding the value these strategies bring to negotiation situations. The women in the
study indicated their intent to implement these strategies in future negotiation opportunities. In Table
1, the data indicates an increased intent to maximize information, implement deadlines and limiting
information provided, including the bottom line. This shift is significant since these particular
strategies and behaviors are typically associated with tactics utilized more effectively by men in
Page 24
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
negotiation situations. The workshops provided an opportunity for the entrepreneurial women to
not only learn how to implement distributive tactics but to better understand how the tactics are
used by others with whom they are negotiating deals.
Table 1
DISTRIBUTIVE STRATEGIES
Answer
Pre Mean
Value (n=42)
Post Mean
Value (n=38)
Pre Standard
Deviation
Post Standard
Deviation
1. I would object to an issue that was unfavorable
to me (Churchman, 1993).
74.27
84.36
19.75
15.77
2. I would maximize the information received and
minimize the information given (Churchman,
1993).
53.05
81
22.15
17.86
3. I would argue in support of my position
(Olekalns, 1996).
70.29
85.07
24.44
17.79
4. I would attempt to increase the time pressure by
indicating the negotiation deadline (Olekalns,
1996).
55.73
76.81
30.33
20.84
5. I would try and hide my bottom line (Barry,
1998).
47.15
78.37
33.37
23.22
The shift among integrative strategies was not as significant among the participants in this
study. This is not surprising since females typically are more comfortable with tactics that focus on
the relationship. Although the women indicated they would be more likely to initiate negotiations
with easy issues and would make more attempts to exchange concessions after taking the
workshop (Table 2), their confidence and practice of seeking to understand differing points of few
and finding clarity around core issues did not shift much.
Table 2
INTEGRATIVE STRATEGIES
Answer
Pre Mean
Value (n=42)
Post Mean
Value (n=38)
Pre Standard
Deviation
Post Standard
Deviation
6. I would begin with easy issues on common ground
(Bordone, 2005).
67.95
88.45
23.44
15.34
7. I would try to identify the core issue and clarify where
each party stood (Bordone, 2005).
72.79
84.45
24.50
16.77
8. I would attempt to exchange concessions with my
opponent (Churchman, 1993).
65.27
85.45
29.20
14.12
9. I would try to understand the situation from my
opponent's point of view (Churchman, 1993).
83.83
84.42
13.64
18.91
10. I would appear patient during the negotiation
(Churchman, 1993).
81.76
87.61
16.39
16.26
Page 25
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Upon responding to the question, “Overall, after taking this workshop, when engaging in
negotiations, I intend to be more.
Table 3
POST SURVEY RESULTS
# Question Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Responses
Mean
1 Persuasive 0 1 3 26 7 37 4.05
2 Confident 0 2 3 19 14 38 4.18
3 Assertive 0 2 5 23 8 38 3.97
4
Likely to achieve my
negotiation outcome
goals
0
1
3
23
11
38
4.16
5
Effective in managing
my emotions
0
2
6
21
9
38
3.97
6 Empathetic 0 0 8 22 8 38 4.00
7 Competitive 0 4 5 19 9 37 3.89
8 Collaborative 0 2 1 19 16 38 4.29
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the small sample size, this study should be considered exploratory and an
opportunity to evaluate whether the insight gleaned warrants further study. Overall, findings
support the idea that negotiation training and development can have a positive impact on the
efficacy of women entrepreneurs when negotiating for their business. The research results suggest
that specific educational pedagogies, i.e., experiential activities involving simulations and
modeling supports the need to develop confidence in the tasks associated with effective
negotiations.
After taking the negotiation workshop, participants overall intended to be more:
Persuasive, confidant, likely to achieve their negotiation outcome goals, competitive and
collaborative in their future negotiations. The participants expressed a likelihood to more
purposely employ both integrative (collaborative) and distributive (competitive) strategies to
respectively create and to claim value. Further, the results of the research corroborates previous
studies showing that entrepreneurship education can have an impact on participant propensity to
learn (Kirby, 2006). Negotiation self-efficacy is important to entrepreneurs and education can
lead to improvements (Kuratko, 2005). As such, educators may want to consider the inclusion of
Negotiation training in designing curriculum for women entrepreneurial programs.
This study can provide support for entrepreneurial educators in designing curriculum for
women entrepreneurs. This skill area is very masculine-based and can be intimidating for
women. Research results that assist in uncovering effective educational methods to drive task
specific negotiation behaviors among women can prove valuable for struggling female
entrepreneurs who lack formal business education and career experience where negotiation
Page 26
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
experience can be most prevalent. Negotiation situations involving the garnering of resources to
launch or grow a business can be very complex. To develop efficacious behaviors in these
situations, women should participate in learning experiences that allow them to actively practice
the tasks associated with successful outcomes. This study provides some support for the use of
case study simulations as effective for women in the area of negotiation skill development.
REFERENCES
Administration, U. D. o. C. E. a. S. (2010). Women-Owned Businesses in the 21st Century. Washington D.C.: US
Department of Commerce.
Bandura. (2006a). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 307-337).
Bandura. (2006b, 2006). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales [307-337].
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1986). The Explanatory and Predictive Scope of Self-Efficacy Theory. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 4(3), 14.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1).
Bandura, A. (2012). On the Functional Properties of Perceived Self-Efficacy Revisited. Journal of Management,
38(1), 9-44. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410606
Barry, B., and Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation.
Personality Social Psychology, 74(2), 345-359.
Birley, S., Moss, C., & Saunders, P. (1987). Do Women Entrepreneurs Require Different Training? American Journal
of Small Business, 12(1), 27-35.
Bordone, R., and Todd, G. S. (2005). Have you negotiated how you'll negotiate? Harvard Business Publishing
Newsletters.
Bowen, D. D., & Hisrich, R. D. (1986). The Female Entrepreneur: A Career Development Perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 11(2), 393-407. doi: 10.5465/amr.1986.4283366
Brady-Amoon, P., & Fuertes, J. N. (2011). Self-Efficacy, Self-Rated Abilities, Adjustment, and Academic
Performance. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(4), 431-438.
Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on Women Business Owners: Past Trends, A New Perspective and Future Directions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(4), 5-5.
Brush, C. G. (2002). The Role of Social Capital and Gender in Linking Financial Suppliers and Entrepreneurial
Firms: A Framework for Future Research. Venture Capital, 4(4), 305-323.
Brush, C. G., de Bruin, A., & Welter, F. (2009). A gender-aware framework for women's entrepreneurship.
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8-24.
Brush, C. G., Wong-MingJi, D. J., & Sullivan, S. E. (1999). Women Entrepreneurs: Moving Beyond the Glass
Ceiling. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 585-586.
Celuch, K., Kozlenkova, I., & Black, G. (2010). An Exploration of Self-Efficacy as a Mediator of Skill Beliefs and
Student Self-Identity as a Critical Thinker. Marketing Education Review, 20(3), 70-80. doi:
10.2753/mer1052-8008200306
Churchman, D. (1993). Negotiation tactics.
Fairlie, R. W. (2012). Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity 1996-2011. Kansas City, Missouri: Kauffman
Foundation.
Gatewood, E. J., Brush, C. G., Carter, N. M., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. (2009). Diana: a symbol of women
entrepreneurs' hunt for knowledge, money, and the rewards of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics,
32(2), 129-144.
Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of Self-Efficacy And Post-Training Intervention on The
Acquisition And Maintenance of Complex Interpersonal Skills. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 837-861.
Hames, D. S. (2011). Negotiation: Closing Deals, Settling Disputes, and Making Team Decisions: Sage
Publications, Inc
Hao, Z., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Development of
Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-1272. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.90.6.1265
Page 27
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. (1984). The Woman Entrepreneur: Management Skills and Business Problems. Journal
of Small Business Management, 22(1), 30-30.
Hoehn-Weiss, M. N., Brush, C. G., & Baron, R. A. (2004). Putting Your Best Foot Forward? Assessments of
Entrepreneurial Social Competence from Two Perspectives. Journal of Private Equity, 7(4), 17-26.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship Education: Toward a Model of Contingency-Based Business Planning. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258-273. doi: 10.5465/amle.2004.14242112
Keller, K. (2012). Marketing Management (14th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.
Kelley, D. J. S., Slavica; Herrington, Mike. (2011). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011 Global Report.
London: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.
Kenworthy, A. L. (2010). Service-Learning and Negotiation. Journal of Management Education, 34(1), 62-87.
Kirby, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge? International
Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness, 35-54.
Kolb, D., & McGinn, K. (2009). Beyond gender and negotiation to gendered negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict
Management Research, 2(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2008.00024.x
Kolb, D. M. (2009). Too Bad for the Women or Does It Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over the Past
Twenty-Five Years. Negotiation Journal, 25(4), 515-531. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00242.x
Kolb, D. M. (2009). Too Bad for the Women or Does It Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over the Past
Twenty-Five Years. Negotiation Journal, 25(4), 515-531. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00242.x
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.
Lewicki, R. (1997). Teaching Negotiation and Dispute Resolution in Colleges of Business: The State of the Practice.
Negotiation Journal, 13(3), 253-269. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1997.tb00131.x
Lewicki, R., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. (2011). Essentials of negotiations: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.,
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, Bruce, Saunders, David M. (2010). Negotiation (Sixth ed.): McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J. W. (2010). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases (6th ed.):
McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.,.
Manolova, T. S., Brush, C. G., Edelman, L. F., & Shaver, K. G. (2012). One Size Does Not Fit All: Entrepreneurial
Expectancies and Growth Intentions of US Women and Men Nascent Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 24(1-2), 7-27.
Martinez. (2008). A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education and Training. Special Report.
Martinez, A. C. L., Jonathan; Kelley, Donna J.; Rognvaldur, Saemundsson J.; Schott, Thomas. (2008). A Global
Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education and Training Special Report. London: Global Entrepreneurship
Research Association.
Miles, E. W., & Clenney, E. F. (2010). Gender differences in negotiation: A status characteristics theory view.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3(2), 130-144. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2010.00054.x
Miles, E. W., & Maurer, T. J. (2012). Advancing validity of self-efficacy in negotiation through focusing at the
domain level. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 23-41. doi:
10.1348/096317910x531744
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of
Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x
Nelson, T., Maxfield, S., & Kolb, D. (2009). Women entrepreneurs and venture capital: managing the shadow
negotiation. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 57-76.
Olekalns, M., Smith, P.L., and Walsh, T. (1996). The process of Negotiating: Strategy and Timing as Predictors of
Outcomes. Organizational Behavorial Hum, 68(1), 68-77.
Plumly, L., Marshall, L. L., Eastman, J., Iyer, R., Stanley, K., & Boatright, J. (2008). Developing entrepreneurial
competencies: A student business. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 11, 17-28.
Pollack, B. L., & Lilly, B. (2008). Gaining Confidence And Competence Through Experiential Assignments: An
Exploration of Student Self-Efficacy And Spectrum Of Inquiry. Marketing Education Review, 18(2), 55-66.
Raposo, M. d. P., Arminda. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Relationship between education and entrepreneurial
activity. International entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 23(3), 453-457.
Page 28
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Sargent, C. S., Borthick, A. F., & Lederberg, A. R. (2011). Improving Retention for Principles of Accounting
Students: Ultra-Short Online Tutorials for Motivating Effort and Improving Performance. Issues in
Accounting Education, 26(4), 657-679. doi: 10.2308/iace-50001
Sexton, D. L., & Bowman, N. B. (1984). ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION: SUGGESTIONS FOR
INCREASING EFFECTIVENESS. Journal of Small Business Management, 22(2), 18-25.
Solomon, G., Fernald, L. W., & Dennis, W. (2003). Self-Identified Management Deficiencies of Entrepreneurs.
Journal of Private Equity, 7(1), 26-35.
Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). EFFECTS OF SELF-EFFICACY AND GOAL- ORIENTATION TRAINING
ON NEGOTIATION SKILL MAINTENANCE: WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS? Personnel
Psychology, 50(4), 955-978.
Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Walters, A. E. (1999). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta?analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 653-677.
Subramanian, G. (2000). WineMaster.com. Harvard Business School Publishing 9-800-249.
Sullivan, B., O'Connor, Kathleen, Burris, Ethan. (2006). Negotiator confidence: The impact of self-efficacy on
tactics and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(567-581).
Tak Wing Yiu; Sai On Cheung, A. M. A. S. C. E. a. L. Y. S. (2012). Application of Bandura's Self-Efficacy Theory
to Examining. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138.
Terjesen, S., & Elam, A. (2012). women entrepreneurship A FORCE FOR GROWTH. International Trade
Forum(2), 16-17.
Thompson, L., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2004). Why negotiation is the most popular business school course. Ivey
Business Journal Online, 1-1.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career
Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(3), 387-
406. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00179.x,
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., Marlino, D., Barbosa, S. D., & Griffiths, M. D. (2009). AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF
GENDER AND SELF-EFFICACY IN DEVELOPING FEMALE ENTREPRENEURIAL INTEREST AND
BEHAVIOR. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 105-119.
Page 29
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND
THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL UNIVERSITY
Charles Harrington, University of South Carolina Upstate
Ramin Maysami, Jackson State University
ABSTRACT
Regional colleges and universities are integral to providing economic and workforce
development resources that support local and regional economies. Similarly, nascent
entrepreneurs create economic opportunities and build enterprises through deliberate
planning and risk taking. By developing and supporting entrepreneurs, colleges and
universities provide an important catalyst for new businesses and a flexible, creative, and
well-educated workforce. Small businesses create nearly three fourths of the net new jobs
added to the economy every year. Areas in the United States with the highest entrepreneurial
activity in the last decade also had high employment growth, high wage growth, and high
productivity. Entrepreneurs that remain within their local community and are supported by
universities represent significant leverage in potential economic revitalization, particularly in
rural communities that suffers high poverty and unemployment. This paper contributes to a
growing body of academic literature on the role that universities play in the development of
the economy. However, it adds a new dimension by articulating the role that
entrepreneurially engaged regional universities may have in regards to improving their
regional communities.
ENTREPRENUERIAL ACTIVITY AND REGIONALISM
Colleges and universities have long been important components to regional economic
and workforce growth and development. Academic program offerings, faculty engagement
and consultation, and professional development and support for small business have
characterized much of this support. Lately, there has been a growing body of academic
research on the role of universities in regional development. Much of which has been
primarily concerned with two issues: economic analyses of the direct employment effects
associated with staff and student spending in the local economy and technology transfer,
particularly through the creation of spin off companies and the establishment of “industrial”
and “science parks” (Goddard, J.B., Charles, D.R., Pike, A., Potts, G. and Bradley, D. 1994).
However, recent research has shown that universities have not as been successful in creating
sustainable environments that enhance technology transfer and the commercialization of
intellectual property from the university (Bok, 2003; Slaughter and Leslie, 2001; Wright, M.,
Birley, S., and Mosey, S., 2004). In contrast, research universities have been able to capitalize
on generating revenue from their research projects resulting in patents and other methods of
technology transfer (Slaughter and Leslie, 2001). Furthermore, as a result of bias that exists
in academia, regional universities may be viewed as institutions that repress the growth of
human and social capital and they have not been able to capitalize on the large funding
models (Wright, 2004).
Page 30
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
More recently, the role of universities in regional development has been seen as
transcending this narrow technical and economic approach to embrace the role of universities
in enhancing human capital within a region. Examples include certificate and degree
programs in entrepreneurship, workshops and seminars, technical and administrative
assistance, and resource referral, but also including recruiting students from outside the
region and placing them with local companies through internships, co-ops, and part-time
employment; programs of continuing and professional development to enhance the skills and
knowledge base of local managers; embedding international businesses by targeted training
programs and research links; providing a gateway to the broader and international knowledge
base for small and medium enterprises (SMEs); and providing strategic analysis and
leadership within local civic society. The fact that expectations of and opportunities for
colleges and universities is rising can be traced to fundamental shifts in the organization of
production and the related regulation of the economy reflected in the processes of
globalization and localization (Clinton, 2014). Effective engagement in regional economic
and workforce development processes requires that institutions of higher education have an
understanding of these dynamics.
ALLIANCES, ALLEGIANCES, AND REGIONAL DEVELOMPENT
Profound transformation of regional U.S. economies since the mid-1970s, have had
major implications for economic and workforce development strategies. The stability of
production systems, product markets and national corporate relations have been undermined
by the rate of technological change, most notably through the widespread effects of generic
or carrier technologies such as ICTs (information and communication technologies).
Technological innovation and access to resources for innovation (skills, knowledge, and
information) have become necessary and central to the competitive strategy of business and
industry (Kanter, R.M., 1995). Many states have recognized the need to embrace, support,
and sustain technology if they are to maintain employment and growth. As a result, there is a
corresponding need to develop and implement policies and practices in the support and
promote R&D, innovation and technology transfer. Notwithstanding this orientation, the
diversification and internationalization of finance and of the organization of production allied
to innovations in ICTs that permit the flexible reshaping and reconfiguring of investment and
resources, has weakened the bargaining power of smaller, rural, businesses. Global bodies
have encouraged greater freedom in the flow of goods and information such that now it is the
nature of the production locality as much as national market characteristics that determines
investment decisions.
Not only has regional and local intervention and support from universities become
more important to economic and workforce success, there has also been a qualitative shift in
the form of local policy towards nascent entrepreneurship and innovation, and to providing a
more sophisticated environment for mobile capital so as to maximize local value added
(R&D and other high status jobs) (Kuratko, 2005). The importance of this perspective for
managing firms and localities has been promoted by Kanter in her recent book World Class:
Thriving locally in the global economy. According to Kanter (1995), future success will
come to those companies, large and small, that can meet global standards and tap into global
networks. And it will come to those cities and regions that do the best job of linking the
businesses that operate within them to the global economy. Kanter (1995) argues that forces
Page 31
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
of globalization are so powerful that communities must connect the global and the local and
create a culture conducive to attracting and retaining investment. The challenge is to find
ways in which the global economy can work locally by unlocking those resources which
distinguish one place from another. The basic argument presented here is that colleges and
universities are uniquely positioned to provide technical, skills, and knowledge capital assets
within the global economy – elements central to the success of regional entrepreneurial
endeavors. Kanter (1995) posits that higher education faculty provide human capital elements
that she has titled the “3 Cs” - Concepts, Competence and Connections. Kanter suggests that
university faculty "can help grow these assets by offering innovative capabilities, production
capabilities, quality skill, learning, networking and collaboration." (Kanter, R.M., 1995). The
location of universities in regions is a powerful facilitator of these processes - concepts links
to research; competence links to teaching and connections links to the transfer to and from a
region of people and networks grown out of universities. In order to realize such policy shifts,
local policy has needed to be innovative and entrepreneurial itself, drawing on a wider
network of resources, negotiating and building alliances between local and state government,
universities, private sector interests and non-profit organizations.
Regional economic and workforce success has been characterized by a variety of
explanatory models, but with a common agreement as to the factors underpinning success:
agglomeration economies, economies of scale and network effects, economies of scope, trust,
networks of small firms and supportive institutions. Central to successful innovation are the
structures and modes of interaction between knowledge producers, disseminators and users.
Since technologies embody both people and ideas as well as tangible products, transactions
involving extensive interaction and iterative communication are widely believed to be
necessary as a means of facilitating exploitation. This 'organized' method of exchange can
encompass both physical technology and/or employees - including producers, disseminators
and users - moving between institutions while maintaining close linkages for instance,
between universities and linked 'spin-off' companies.
COLLABORATION IN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS
In the context of the role of universities in economic development, the most helpful
approach to operationalize these ideas can be found in the concept of the learning economy
which emerges from studies of innovation (Lundvall, B-Å., Johnson, B., 1994). Lundvall
stresses the importance of interactive learning as a basis for innovation and change in local
and regional developed economies. The learning economy is defined as an economy where
the success of individuals, firms and regions, reflects the capability to learn; where change
and transformation is rapid and old skills quickly become antiquated and new skills are in
demand; where learning includes skills and the building of competencies, not just increased
access to information; where identifiable and measurable learning is occurring in all aspects
of the economy, not just high-tech sectors; and where net job creation is in knowledge
intensive sectors (high R & D, high proportion with a university degree, and job situation
worsens for the unskilled) (Venkataraman, 2003).
Within the learning economy different modes of knowledge can be identified. First,
know what, that is facts and information. Second, know why, - principles and laws necessary
to reduce trial and error; third, know how - the skills and capability to do something, skills
that are traditionally acquired within the workplace; and finally know who - information
Page 32
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
about who knows how to do what and the social capability to establish relationships to
special groups in order to draw on their expertise. Each of these different forms of learning
employs different channels for information exchange. In the case of know what and why,
formal learning in school and universities is the normal channel. Know how depends on
practical experience through tacit learning (for example, through apprenticeships) but also
increasingly through network relationships with industrial and commercial partners. Finally,
know who is learned from social interaction via professional associations, day to day dealings
with customers, sub-contractors and a wide range of other actors and agencies.
Focusing on network knowledge, this is a hybrid form of knowledge that is neither
completely public nor completely private. It depends on trust and is characterized by
reliability, honesty, and co-operation. Network knowledge refers not only to the skills of
individuals but the transfer of knowledge from one group to another to form learning systems
- the institutional infrastructure of public and private partnerships. Because network
knowledge is highly dependent on interpersonal relations, it can most readily be developed
within a particular region. Florida (1995) argues, 'To be effective in this increasingly
borderless global economy, regions must be defined by the same criteria and elements which
comprise a knowledge-intensive firm: continuous improvement, new ideas, knowledge
creation and organizational learning.
Regions must adopt the principles of knowledge creation and continuous learning;
they must in effect become “knowledge-creating or learning regions.' Key to such a learning
region is the human infrastructure and the institutional mechanisms that foster interactive
learning, and a central part of this infrastructure, in terms of the reproduction and adaptation
of human resources, are universities. In the case of human capital, universities have
traditionally produced new graduates for a labor market dominated by large employers, with
little concern for SMEs or graduate retention in local labor markets. This traditional model
often fails to respond to changing patterns of employer demands such as the decentralization
of large corporations into clusters of smaller business units and the greater role of smaller
businesses as sub-contractors, suppliers, franchisees etc. with subsequent implications for the
skills required of graduates and the location of the recruitment decision. At the same time
regional agencies are promoting graduate retention initiatives as a way of upgrading higher
level local skills. This demand side changes the expansion of service provided by higher
education with rising numbers experiencing the need to change career later on in life is
leading to a growing supply of local students for undergraduate and graduate programs.
Notwithstanding these developments, little is known about the flow of students
through higher education into local labor markets and how this relates to the overall
economic performance of regions. Yet a key characteristic of the learning region is the way in
which knowledge is transferred from one group to another to create learning systems. In
terms universities this includes knowledge of the appropriate skills and competencies
required of the workforce. What constitutes "appropriate skills" will depend on the overall
regional development strategy, be it indigenous development based on local enterprise,
exogenous development based on attracting inward investment, or a combination of the two,
for example by upgrading local suppliers to support and "embed" inward investment. In this
context, the analogy between regions and organizations is one where the shift from personnel
management based around handling individual employment contracts and personal
development shifts to human resource management which harnesses people development to
the strategic objective of the organization.
Page 33
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The key question here becomes: "Does the region include human resource
development as part of its overall strategy?" The question raises specific challenges
concerning the type of training programs, the qualification of institutions best placed to
provide the program, and where within the region should this provision occur. An obvious
requirement of a regional human resource strategy is information about future labor market
needs. Given the long time lag between the identification of needs and the development of the
necessary skills, one of the fundamental requirements of a learning region is the sharing of
intelligence between higher education and training and human capital development programs
and employers. Because of the inherent difficulties of forecasting future demands, the
inevitable priority will be to ensure that education and training systems produce people with
the flexibility to respond to stronger changing circumstances alongside specific skills and
competencies required by particular industries and/or occupations.
Although research has focused on the direct contribution of universities to the
economic success of the regions in which they are located, a further question concerns the
indirect contribution of universities to the social and cultural basis of effective democratic
governance and, ultimately, economic success. For example, Putnam (1993) has shown the
strong relationship between a civic culture and institutions (understood as "norms of
reciprocity and networks of civic engagement") and wider socio-economic performance.
Regions are rich in such networks 'encourage social trust and co-operation because they
reduce incentives to defect, reduce uncertainty, and provide models for future co-operation'.
In so far as universities are by tradition classically "civic" institutions, they can play a key
role in the development of the cultural and political determinants of socio-economic success.
A key challenge is to enhance the role which universities, including their faculty and
students, play in the development of such networks of civic and entrepreneurial engagement,
and in the wider political and cultural leadership of their regions.
THE ROLE AND SCOPE OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENGAGEMENT
The implications of many of the processes outlined here have yet to be successfully
resolved by universities. Kanter (2001) refers to four aspects of globalization - simultaneity,
multiple choice, pluralism and resource mobility. Simultaneity refers to the fact that we can
no longer rely on spatial and temporal lags associated with the diffusion of new education
products and services - universities can no longer hide behind the barriers of time and space.
Multiple choice or by pass refers to the way in which local or regional monopolies are broken
down, such that universities can no longer rely on local monopoly in education as new
providers using distance learning techniques enter their realm. Pluralism is the process by
which old centers of power are continually challenged such that many universities can no
longer guarantee their dominant position as students and firms exert consumer choice (Shane,
2004). Finally, mobility, particularly of the elite or so called “cosmopolitans”, are shifting
their place of residence and business more frequently, and this applies no less in academia
than in the private sector. In the face of these threats, universities have no option but to
attempt to tie down the global within the local; in so doing they will find willing partners in
the public and corporate sector where similar pressures are being exerted. Universities must
reconsider their administrative structures and management processes and practices in the light
of this challenge.
Page 34
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The scale of the challenge should not be underestimated. Developing and evolving the
curriculum to rapidly changing needs of employers and labor markets provides a good
example. In terms of Lundvall's description of the learning economy, universities have been
good at the know what and know why aspects of education, and are improving on the know
how aspects through integration of the tacit learning acquired via work placements into
teaching programs, the know who dimension is altogether more problematic. Progress on this
front implies a deep relationship between research and teaching based on the sharing of the
network knowledge of the research endeavor with students at all levels. Additionally, there is
a need for a paradigm shift in the academy that will allow for human and social capital to be
cultivated within the walls of the academy and encourage economic development within the
region (Binks M., Starkey, K., and Mahon, C. L., 2006).
Further research has shown that by modifying their curriculum to meet the needs of
the labor market, universities are able to cultivate human and social capital with greater skill-
sets and they create value-added networks for current students and alumni as well as faculty
members (Sager B., Fernandez, M. G., and Thursby, M., 2006; Westhead P. and Matlay, H.,
2006; and Mosey S., Lockett, A., and Westhead, P., 2006). Universities should move away
from their traditional approach and utilize a more constructivist approach which would build
their core curriculum around entrepreneurship education (Binks, M., Starkey, K. and Mahon,
C. L., 2006). Graduates of an entrepreneurship based education would have the relevant skill
sets (human and social capital) that would allow them to support and leverage economic
development in their local communities and build a sustainable competitive advantage for
their region. Schumpeter offered the insight that economic development is a result of
entrepreneurship (Schumpeter, J. A., 1934); hence, in order to promote economic
development universities must provide a service to their region by promoting and sustaining
entrepreneurial education.
When considering their relationship with industry in a regional context universities
should consider themselves as being located at the head of a supply chain, devoted to the
creation, provision, and application of knowledge. The distribution channels for this
knowledge are through students (projects and placements), graduates and post-graduates, as
well as through published and contract research and consultancy that leads to new and
improved technologies and management processes. But unlike a business enterprise situated
in a similar supply chain position, universities devote relatively little resources to marketing
their products in the form of graduates or to responding to signals about what the market
wants. They simply have a sales department, in the form of the career placement offices,
which have limited ability or mechanisms to match output (quality, quantity or specification)
to customer needs.
The market place is, of course, extremely complex because it is composed of the
totality of organizations that currently, or might in the future, employ graduates. At one end
of the spectrum are tightly regulated vocational markets like medicine, architecture, law and
engineering. (Arguably universities have been overly responsive to this segment of the
market to the extent of having been 'captured' by some professional bodies). At the other end
of the spectrum are the largely unarticulated demands of SMEs. If universities are to play a
more active role in economic development, it is vital that they understand the market segment
and inform their teaching activities by its needs. This means not simply responding to
currently expressed wants but actively researching the dynamics underlying changing
employer needs and treating students as clients and employers as the end customer.
Page 35
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
In some countries the fact that this approach is far from universal can be partly
attributed to the student funding regime which currently rewards "production" but not "sale".
In consequence the marketing function is often poorly developed. If universities were in part
rewarded for the delivery of graduates into employment, including local employment, they
would clearly have an incentive to put more effort into marketing and economic
development. But becoming a market led organization requires a major change in university
culture. It implies a strong sense of institutional purpose whereas universities remain
dominated by academics whose principle professional loyalty is to their national or
international invisible college rather than their parent institution. The new production of
knowledge involving partnerships with the users and beneficiaries of research also transcends
institutional boundaries and is difficult to integrate with formal institutional planning and
resource allocations. New patterns of strategic alliances between academic groups based on
complimentary competencies may occur but not between institutions within a region. In
short, improved integration of universities with regional development will not be readily
achieved by top down planning mechanisms at either the institutional or regional level but by
ensuring the various stakeholders in the regional development process - education and
training providers, employers and employers organizations, trade unions, economic
development, labor market agencies and individual learners - have an understanding of each
others role and the factors encouraging or inhibiting greater regional engagement. For
example understanding that universities and labor market agencies work in the context of
national higher education policy and labor market training targets, employers of global
competitive pressures to downsize, outsource etc. and students of personal financial
constraints on investment in learning.
While local and state governments may seek to increase the engagement of
universities with economic development, the means of achieving this goal is far from clear,
particularly in the context of the value universities attach to individual autonomy. Such
autonomy is associated with a diversity of institutions, often on a regional as well as a
national scale that has evolved historically. For those universities with a strong research base,
regional issues may be of minor concern. Such institutions see themselves as serving the
region by attracting students from outside with those who remain adding to the local stock of
human capital. They also contribute to attracting inward investment and possibly embedding
that investment through training and research links. Such institutions thus contribute to
exogenous regional development. Nevertheless, even within research based universities,
certain departments, degree programs and research activities have strong regional linkages.
Alongside such institutions in most regions are those where serving the local and
regional communities remains a central component of their mission. Regional universities
also have national and international links that can provide gateways for local firms and
students to the wider world. Finally, between these extremes there may be universities which
are trying to develop their research base in selected fields and in the process devoting
considerable resources to "going global". Determining which particular mix of institutions
and more importantly mix of teaching and research programs would best underpin the
economic development of a region is a key challenge. With the right form of incentives in
terms of university assessment procedures and leadership development programs, it might be
possible to ensure that the appropriate signals reach and are embedded into the programs of
individual universities.
Page 36
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
With regards to assessment, in addition to the inclusion of regional criteria into
national teaching and research assessment exercises, a strong case can be made for
establishing a regional assessment process undertaken by universities themselves. Such
assessments could be done with the aid of consultants with expertise in economic
development and higher education management. These assessments would cover institutional
organization, teaching, research and other services actually or potentially relevant to regional
needs. The outcome of the assessment could be linked to a development fund for pump
priming initiatives and which aims to enhance the university's contribution to economic
development. Institutions would be free to participate in such a scheme and/or confine it to
those parts of their activity that they deem to be regionally relevant. Alongside such
assessments it would be necessary to have a program of human resource development
targeting those individuals inside and outside of universities that have boundary spanning
functions relevant to joint working on economic development. One of the key factors of
success in regional partnerships merely act as gatekeepers between different
organizations/networks. A small number of staff in universities, labor market and economic
development agencies and dynamic businesses hold positions in which extra-organizational
networking is a central feature of their job.
Those people who hold such position will do so by virtue of their personal and
professional competency; they nevertheless require developmental support for their own
professional improvement, and moral support from individuals and groups around them. For
the most part the necessary skills and attributes are intuitive and learned through practice;
however the growing need for such people suggests that some more fundamental training and
support is required. Relevant skills include: networking; facilitation; working with alternative
cultures; setting up projects; planning and contract management; raising financial support;
personal organization; supervision and personal support techniques; insight into
organizational policies and dynamics. The establishment of such a development program for
individuals engaged in the university/regional interface would be a further small positive step
towards its improved management. Furthermore this interface would allow for an
"entrepreneurial development system" to be created that would be regional in scope and
systematic in approach (Lyons, T.S., 2003). As a result economic development in the regions
would be enhanced due to these sustainable partnerships. Similar strictures apply to other
stakeholders concerned to raise regional competitiveness.
CONCLUSION
Technological innovation and access to resources for innovation (skills, knowledge,
and information) have become vitally necessary and central to the competitive strategy of
business and industry. Not only has regional and local intervention and support become more
important to economic and workforce success, there has also been a qualitative shift in the
form of local policy towards nascent entrepreneurship and innovation, and to providing a
more sophisticated environment for mobile capital so as to maximize local value added
(R&D and other high status jobs, successful and therefore growing firms).
The location of universities in regions is a powerful facilitator of these processes -
concepts links to research; competence links to teaching and connections links to the transfer
to and from a region of people and networks grown out of universities. As a result, the
academy will need to undergo an elemental paradigm shift that will allow for human and
Page 37
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
social capital to be cultivated within the walls of the academy and encourage economic
development within the region (Binks, M., Starkey, K. and Mahon, C. L., 2006).
The distribution channels for this knowledge are through students (projects and
placements), graduates and post-graduates, as well as through published and contract research
and consultancy that leads to new and improved technologies and management processes.
Regional universities should take the lead in creating economic development in their regions
by supplying the knowledge chain that will produce the human capital and by increasing the
quality of life which will provide the social capital.
By fostering entrepreneurism, regional universities provide the catalyst for new
businesses and a flexible, creative, motivated, and well-educated workforce that will enhance
the economic development of the regions they serve. In essence, the expectations of and
opportunities for colleges and universities is rising and can be traced to fundamental shifts in
the organization of production and the related regulation of the economy reflected in the
processes of globalization and localization. The ‘ivory tower’ of traditional academe has to
continue to move forward and embrace the concept of leading their regions to become more
entrepreneurial and competitive in this global economy.
REFERENCES
Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (eds.) (1994). Globalization, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Binks, M., Starkey, K. and Mahon, C. L. (2006). Entrepreneurship education and the business school.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(1), 1-18.
Clinton, A. (2014). The Role of Higher Education in Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Nova Science
Publishers.
Florida, R. (1995). Toward the learning region. Futures, 27(5), 527-536.
Goddard, J.B., Charles, D.R., Pike, A., Potts, G. and Bradley, D. (1994). Universities and Communities.
Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, London.
Kanter, R.M. (1995). World Class: Thriving Locally in the Global Economy. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Kuratko, D. (2005). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends, and Challenges.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 (5), 557-598.
Lundvall, B-Å. (ed.) (1992). National Systems of Innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive
learning. Pinter, London.
Lundvall, B-Å., Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 2, 23-42.
Lundvall, B-Å. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national
systems of innovation, in G. Dosi et al, Technical Change and Economic Theory. Frances Pinter,
London.
Lyons, T.S. (2003). Policies for creating an entrepreneurial region. Main Streets of Tomorrow: Growing and
Financing Rural Entrepreneurs, a conference sponsored by the Center for the Study of Rural America,
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 97-106.
Mosey, S., Lockett, A., and Westhead, P. (2006). Creating network bridges for university technology transfer:
The medici fellowship programme. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(1), 71-91.
Putnam, R.D. with Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R.Y. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in
Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Sager, B., Fernandez, M. G., and Thursby, M.(2006). Implications of a multi-disciplinary educational and
research environment: Perspectives of future business, law, science, and engineering professionals in
the technological innovation: generating economic results program. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 18(1), 57-69.
Page 38
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Shane, A. (2004). Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation. Edward Elgar
Publishing, Ltd., Cheltenham.
Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L.L. (2001). Expanding and Elaborating the Concept of Academic Capitalism.
Organization 8(2): 154-161.
van der Meer, E. (1996). Knowledge on the Move: The University as a Local Source of Expertise. University of
Amsterdam.
Venkataraman, S. (2003). Regional Transformation through technological entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 19, (1), 153-167.
Westhead, P. and Matlay, H. (2006). Skills associated with employment positions in SMEs and favourable
attitudes toward self-employment: longitudinal evidence from students who participated in the Shell
Technology Enterprise Programme. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(1), 93-124.
Wright, M., Birley, S., and Mosey, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship and university technology. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 29, 235-246.
Page 39
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE DRIVERS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS -
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY AMONG INFORMATION
SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDENTS
Natalie Kaltenecker, Institute for Information Systems and New Media
LMU Munich
Christian Hoerndlein, Institute for Information Systems and New Media,
LMU Munich
Thomas Hess, Institute for Information Systems and New Media,
LMU Munich
ABSTRACT
The increase in entrepreneurial activity around the globe has been accompanied by a
growth in the number of articles on entrepreneurship education. However, to date there has been
little research on entrepreneurship education in the field of information technology in general
and on software entrepreneurship education in particular. To address this research gap, we
conducted an empirical study based on an extended model of the Theory of Planned Behavior
among Information Systems and Computer Science students. We found that Attitude, i.e. whether
a person evaluates founding a software company favorably or unfavorably, is the main driver of
Information Systems students. In contrast, having a Business Idea is the most influential factor
for Computer Science students. A more detailed analysis identified the perception of
entrepreneurship as an opportunity for self-fulfillment and a high monetary reward, along with
not associating entrepreneurship with a high risk of failure, to have the strongest impact on
Information Systems students’ Attitude. Based on our findings, we derive recommendations for a
more data-driven curriculum design and discuss the implications for developing more
entrepreneurially oriented courses tailored to both groups of students.
INTRODUCTION
There has recently been an enormous increase in information technology (IT) and high-
tech entrepreneurship. This growth in entrepreneurial activity has even been likened to the
“Cambrian explosion” 540 million years ago, where life on earth started to flourish and became
much more varied (The Economist, 2014). This expansion of entrepreneurship has not remained
limited to Silicon Valley, a region which is often depicted as the archetype of an entrepreneurial
region and has given birth to many successful web-based companies. Rather, cities all over the
world, such as London in England, Tel Aviv in Israel, or Bangalore in India now compete for
establishing themselves as entrepreneurial hubs (The Economist, 2014; USA Today, 2014).
This upswing in entrepreneurial activity has been accompanied by a considerable
increase in the number of articles published on entrepreneurship education in the last decade
(Kozlinska, 2011). Entrepreneurship education has been defined as “the process of providing
Page 40
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
individuals with the ability to recognize commercial opportunities and the insight, self-esteem,
knowledge and skills to act on them” (Jones & English, 2004, p. 416). Although IT has played a
major role in more recent entrepreneurial activity (Foster & Lin, 2003) and entrepreneurship has
been increasingly taught to non-business students (Conners & Ruth, 2012), there is surprisingly
little research on entrepreneurship education tailored to IT students. However, given the
development that we have outlined above, IT students are likely to represent a population of
students where entrepreneurship education is likely to meet fertile ground.
Existing research in the IT context mostly focuses on the need for more practice-oriented,
also termed “hands-on”, courses when teaching entrepreneurship (Abrahams & Singh, 2010;
Foster & Lin, 2003; Kor & Abrahams, 2007; Kuckertz, 2013; Schilling & Klamma, 2010). This
development resonates with the shift from passive and formal modes of transferring knowledge
to an approach more focused on “learning by doing” (Kozlinska, 2011) and “experiential
learning” (Welsh and Tullar, 2014). An important aspect that could guide the design of such
entrepreneurship courses for IT students has received no explicit attention. It has been
acknowledged that differences in prior knowledge can impact the learning of entrepreneurial
content (Foster & Lin, 2003). Besides, recent research has called for a more detailed analysis on
how to maximize the effectiveness of designing curricula for non-business majors (Conners &
Ruth, 2012). However, there is a lack of research on how different entrepreneurial intentions are
formed in two highly relevant groups regarding their intention to establish a company in the IT
industry: more business-oriented Information Systems (IS) students and more technically
oriented Computer Science (CS) students. Owing to their different educational backgrounds,
these two groups of students might be driven by different factors to engage in entrepreneurial
activities.
Furthermore, “n the rapidly changing field of Information Systems, educational
programs must be continually reevaluated and revised” (Noll & Wilkins, 2002, p.143). However,
research that follows this recommendation (Bell, Mills & Fadel, 2013; Carlsson, Hedman &
Steen, 2010; Crowley, 2003; Topi et al., 2010) neither addresses entrepreneurial aspects nor
differentiates between IS and CS students. Our empirical study focuses on this research gap and
thereby hopefully contributes to a data-driven curriculum design in entrepreneurial IT education.
Our study focuses on students’ intention to start a new business in the software industry.
This focus is especially relevant as potential entrepreneurs in the software industry face low
barriers to entry (Giarratana, 2004). Improvements in software entrepreneurship curricula might
therefore be able to foster entrepreneurial activity more easily than in other fields.
The remainder of this study is structured as follows. First, we present the theoretical
background and related work identifying the research gap that our study strives to close. We then
provide details on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), from which we derive our hypotheses
and formulate our exploratory research question. After explaining the scale development and the
item refinement process, we present the results of the comparison between the groups of CS and
IS students. We conclude with a summary of the results and by pointing out the study’s potential
limitations and avenues for further research.
Page 41
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
BACKGROUND
Definitions
Given the abundance of different fields of entrepreneurship research, it is difficult to
derive an all-embracing definition of the term “entrepreneurship”. We follow the widely cited
definition of entrepreneurship as “the identification, evaluation, and exploitation of
opportunities” (Shane, 2012, p. 12). In our study, the focus is on creating a new enterprise in the
software industry as a specific institutional arrangement of entrepreneurship, as opposed to other
possible arrangements such as in-firm entrepreneurship (Shane, 2012).
This study’s focus lies on “opportunity entrepreneurship”. Stephan (2008) suggests that
individuals engage in entrepreneurial activity to take advantage of an opportunity and achieve
their personal goals. Our understanding of an entrepreneur is therefore based on a behaviorally
oriented definition, which states that “entrepreneurship is concerned with the discovery and
exploitation of profitable opportunities” (Stephan, 2008, p. 10).
We draw on Jones and English’s (2004, p. 416) definition of entrepreneurship education.
They define entrepreneurship education as “the process of providing individuals with the ability
to recognise commercial opportunities and the insight, self-esteem, knowledge and skills to act
on them. It includes instruction in opportunity recognition, commercialising a concept,
marshalling resources in the face of risk, and initiating a business venture”. This definition is
also in line with our study’s focus, as it relates entrepreneurship education to the specific purpose
of creating a company. By concentrating on university-educated IT students as potential
entrepreneurs, we limit our study to a subset of individuals who might aspire to become
entrepreneurs in the software industry. However, this emphasis allows us to analyze this group in
more detail and derive important implications for future entrepreneurship education programs.
Related Work and Research Gap
In entrepreneurship research, two influential streams can be distinguished: person-centric
and intention-based models. In the first stream, research’s main interest lies in the entrepreneur
as a person and his/her motivation to create a company. The trait approach, which focuses on an
entrepreneur’s character traits, has dominated this perspective (Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
Nevertheless, no character traits that lead to the foundation of a business have been clearly
identified, and behavioral scientists could not determine definitive correlations between
personality traits and specific entrepreneurial behavior (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Consequently,
the trait approach has been frequently criticized.
The second stream, intention-based models, has evolved as the most frequently used type
of models explaining entrepreneurial behavior. In these models, intention mediates the influence
of specific factors on actual behavior. Ajzen’s (1991) TPB and Shapero’s model of the
entrepreneurial event (Shapero, 1982) are two important instances of these intention-based
models.
Krueger et al. (2000) state that entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, emphasizing
opportunities over threats, which clearly indicates an intentional process. Further, they underline
Page 42
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
that in the psychological literature, intentions have proven to be the best predictor of planned
behavior. Ajzen (1991) argues that intentions depend on perceptions of personal attractiveness,
social norms, and feasibility. Shapero (1982), on the other hand, shows that entrepreneurial
intentions depend on the perceptions of personal desirability, feasibility, and propensity to act.
Over time, especially Ajzen’s TPB has become widely accepted in entrepreneurship research
(Engle et al., 2010; Shook & Bratianu, 2010; Kautonen, van Gelderen & Tornikoski, 2013).
However, the TPB has not been applied to study IT students’ intention to become
entrepreneurs in general, nor the difference between CS and IS students in particular. Our study
therefore sets out to close this research gap.
RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Intentions toward a behavior are the best predictor of a particular behavior, even more
effective than attitudes, beliefs, personality, or demographics (Krueger et al., 2000). In addition,
MacMillan and Katz (1992) emphasize that understanding intentions is particularly valuable
where the phenomenon is rare, obscure, or involves unpredictable time lags. Clearly, this seems
to be the case for entrepreneurial activity. Ajzen (1991) states that intentions predict behavior
and serve as a conduit to better understand the act itself. Thus, intention is an important predictor
concerning new venture creation. TPB is widely accepted in entrepreneurship research as a way
to understand the intention to found a company (Stephan, 2008).
The TPB postulates three conceptually independent determinants of intention: Subjective
Norm, Attitude, and Perceived Behavioral Control. The first predictor, Subjective Norm, relates
to whether those in an individual’s social environment deem the respective behavior desirable.
The second predictor, Attitude, relates to whether a person evaluates the behavior under
consideration favorably or unfavorably. The third antecedent of Intention is the degree of
Perceived Behavioral Control, which refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of conducting
behavior, and is assumed to reflect past experience, as well as the anticipated impediments and
obstacles. TPB predicts that the more favorable the Attitude, the stronger the Subjective Norm,
and the greater the Perceived Behavioral Control, the higher an individual’s intention to conduct
the behavior under consideration (Ajzen, 1991).
Based on TPB’s general propositions, we derive the following hypotheses:
H
1
Subjective Norm has a positive impact on students’ Intention to start a new business in the
software industry.
H
2
Attitude has a positive impact on students’ Intention to start a new business in the software
industry.
H
3
Perceived Behavioral Control has a positive impact on students’ Intention to start a new business
in the software industry.
In addition to the three predictors that we derived from the TPB, we propose that an
additional factor has a positive impact on students’ Intention. Shane and Venkataraman (2000)
emphasize the role of the “entrepreneurial opportunity”, which itself is an objective
phenomenon, and which is often discovered by actively searching for it (Boyles, 2012).
Page 43
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
However, not everybody is aware of this opportunity. Business ideas, on the other hand, are
“plans created and enacted in response to the entrepreneurs’ beliefs about opportunities” (Shane,
2012, p. 15). These “decisions about how to recombine resources are subjective and creative”
(Shane 2012, p. 16) and can be considered a means to exploit an entrepreneurial opportunity.
Based on these considerations, one can assume that students who are able to develop a specific
business idea based on an entrepreneurial opportunity are more likely to start a company than
their peers who lack a specific business idea. We therefore propose:
H
4
Having a Business Idea has a positive impact on students’ Intention to start a new business in the
software industry.
Figure 1 summarizes the four hypotheses in a path diagram based on the TPB’s base
model extended by the construct Business Idea.
Figure 1. Research Model
From an exploratory perspective, we set out to compare the importance of the four factors
(i.e. the respective path coefficients) for the groups of CS and IS students. Identifying inter-
group differences could subsequently guide decisions to develop more effective entrepreneurship
curricula based on the most influential factors. We therefore formulate the exploratory research
question:
Do CS and IS students differ regarding the relative impact that the four factors –
Subjective Norm, Attitude, Perceived Behavioral Control, and Business Idea – have on their
Intention to start a new business?
Attitude
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Business
Idea
Intention
Subjective
Norm
H
4
(+)
H
3
(+)
H
2
(+)
H
1
(+)
Page 44
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND ITEM REFINEMENT
Conceptualization and Development of the Indicators
The constructs in the TPB are usually measured reflectively and have been used in
previous research. We could therefore adapt items that had already been developed and validated
before (cf. Venkatesh et al., 2003). We also measured the constructs Subjective Norm, Attitude
and Perceived Behavioral Control formatively. This approach helps us to draw a general
conclusion (MacCallum & Brown, 1993) regarding whether students believe that their social
environment approves of their decision to start a new company (Subjective Norm), whether these
students view entrepreneurship positively (Attitude), whether they believe that they are capable
of starting a new company (Perceived Behavioral Control), and the specific influences from
which these beliefs stem.
In order to generate formative indicators, we first analyzed studies which had already
developed a measurement instrument based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. The formative
items from these studies were collected and, if necessary, complemented with information from
qualitative interviews with several founders of software companies. Based on these steps, the
formative indicators were chosen to measure Subjective Norm, Attitude, and Perceived
Behavioral Control.
In contrast, the construct “Business” Idea had not yet been operationalized and validated.
As we could not revert to an already verified construct in the literature, we created seven
reflective items and tested their unidimensionality and reliability in a pre-test (see the following
paragraph). Sample items are “I have discovered a market niche in the software industry” or “I
have an idea for a software product or a software service”.
Refinement of the Indicators
A pre-test (N=21) was undertaken in December 2011 to test the developed questionnaire
in preparation for the main survey and to ensure that all items are understood by survey
participants as intended. The pre-test generated positive feedback concerning the questionnaire’s
length and comprehensibility. Based on the pilot study, we slightly revised the survey (e.g.
changing the Likert scale from seven to five points and reducing the constructs’ number of
reflective items to three items per construct), but maintained the basic structure of the survey.
We found that multicollinearity was not an issue regarding the formative indicators, as the
variance inflation factors were smaller than 10 and the condition indices smaller than 30
(Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001). Additionally, principal component analysis showed that
all seven reflective items of the Business Idea load on a single factor.
SURVEY RESULTS
In this section, we first describe the survey setting. We thereafter provide the results of
the descriptive analysis, the analysis of the measurement and path model, and the group
comparison of CS and IS students. To account for measurement errors, we employ structural
equation modeling instead of multiple linear regression for the data analysis (Chin, 1998). Since
Page 45
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
our study focuses on identifying the key drivers of entrepreneurial intentions, we employ partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), which also makes no distributional
assumptions such as multivariate normality (Hair, Ringle & Sarstedt, 2011).
Setting and Descriptive Results
We distributed a two-page printed questionnaire to students from three German public
universities regarding their intention to start a new company in the software industry. We
focused on bachelor and master-level students, who participated in nine selected lectures during
the 2011/2012 winter term. To achieve a high response rate, the questionnaire was handed out to
the students at the beginning of the lecture. The data was collected during January and February
2012. A total of 598 questionnaires were distributed and 402 completed responses were received,
yielding a response rate of 67.2%. The sample (N=402) consists of 295 (73.4%) male and 107
(26.6%) female students in IS (44.3%), CS (20.4%), and Media Informatics (27.9%).
Furthermore, 7.4% of the respondents took CS as a minor. 24.4% of the students pursued a
master’s and 75.6% a bachelor’s degree. In addition to the constructs specified above, the
questionnaire included control variables for the students’ backgrounds and sociodemographics.
Test of the Reflective Measurement Model
The reflective measurement model for the five constructs, which were measured on a 5-
point Likert scale, was assessed in terms of their respective factor loadings. The range of each
construct’s factor loadings is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Range of Factor Loadings per Construct and Student Group
Factor Loadings
IS students CS students
Intention (3 items)
.948 - .970 .945 - .969
Subjective Norm (3 items) .911 - .927 .869 - .918
Attitude (3 items) .866 - .904 .791 - .852
Perceived Behavioral Control (3 items) .846 - .930 .815 - .870
Business Idea (7 items) .832 - .949 .867 - .922
To assess the internal consistency reliability and convergent validity, we calculated the
composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) scores. The results are shown
in Table 2.
Table 2
CR and AVE per Construct and
Student Group
CR AVE
IS students CS students IS students CS students
Intention
.97 .97 .92 .92
Subjective Norm .94 .93 .84 .81
Attitude .91 .86 .78 .68
Perceived Behavioral Control .91 .89 .78 .73
Business Idea .97 .97 .81 .82
Page 46
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The analysis shows that the factor loadings are all well above .7, indicating indicator
reliability (Hair et al., 2011) for both groups of IS and CS students. The CR scores range
between .86 and .97, exceeding the recommended threshold of .7 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The
AVE values lie between .68 and .92. Since the square root of all AVE values also exceeds the
respective inter-construct correlations, there is strong evidence of convergent and discriminant
validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Analysis of the Path Model
We analyzed the path model for each of the two groups using the SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle,
Wende & Sinkovics, 2005) software. The values displayed in Figure 2 were obtained using
casewise replacement, which resulted in samples of 175 IS students and 81 CS students. The
significance levels were obtained by bootstrapping with 5,000 samples.
Figure 2. Path Coefficients for IS and CS Students
(*** p < .001; ** p < .01)
Attitude, Perceived Behavioral Control, and Business Idea were found to have a
significant impact on IS students’ Intention. Attitude and Business Idea have a significant impact
on CS students. Although we therefore have to reject H1, we can accept H2, can partially accept
H3 (as Perceived Behavioral Control only has an impact on IS students), and can accept H4.
To answer the exploratory research question of whether the factors’ impact on Intention
differs between the two groups, we conducted a group comparison of the path coefficients based
on Henseler and Fassott (2010) for the constructs Attitude, Perceived Behavioral Control, and
Business Idea. The results of this analysis can be found in Table 3.
Attitude
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Business
Idea
Intention
R² = 64.2%
Subjective
Norm
Information Systems Students
.255***
.227***
.550***
-.035
Attitude
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Business
Idea
Intention
R² = 47.7%
Subjective
Norm
Computer Science Students
.560**
-.011
.216**
.113
Page 47
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 3
Group Comparison of Path Coefficients
Paths
Path Coefficients
p values for difference
IS students CS students
Intention
.550 .216 .000
Subjective Norm .227 -.011 .016
Attitude .255 .560 .001
The analysis shows that Attitude and Perceived Behavior Control have a stronger impact
on IS students’ Intention than on CS students’ Intention, while Business Idea has a stronger
impact on CS students.
As we integrated the Business Idea as a fourth construct into the TPB, we analyzed the
magnitude of this construct’s impact on Intention by calculating the effect sizes for both groups
of students. Business Idea had a small to medium effect of .13 on IS students and a large effect
of .52 on CS students (Chin, 1998; Cohen, 1988). We therefore conclude that integrating the
Business Idea construct can considerably increase TPB’s explanatory power regarding students’
behavioral intention.
Drivers of IS Students’ Attitude
Attitude was identified as having the strongest impact on IS students. Since we also
measured the construct with formative indicators, we identified the strongest drivers for Attitude
by means of a redundancy analysis (Cenfetelli & Bassellier, 2009) by analyzing the formatively
measured construct’s impact on the reflectively measured construct. T-values were generated for
the formative items through the SmartPLS bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 samples. The
results are displayed in Table 4.
Table 4
Drivers of Attitude (*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; n.s.: not significant)
Formative Indicators Indicator Weights
Self-fulfillment 0.650
***
High monetary reward 0.388
*
High risk to fail (negatively coded) 0.313
*
Working Independently 0.131
n.s.
High social status 0.038
n.s.
High work load (negatively coded) -0.035
n.s.
Only the perception of a high risk of failure, an opportunity for self-fulfillment, and the
chance of a high monetary reward were found to be significant drivers of Attitude; working
independently, achieving a high social status, and the expectation of a high work load were not
found to have a significant impact. The analysis of the variance inflation factors, which were all
below 1.4, indicated no issues of multicollinearity that might have confounded our analysis.
Page 48
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS
Discussion
The results of our study show that different factors drive IS and CS students’ intention to
start a company in the software industry. Attitude emerged as the most influential factor for IS
students, whereas having a Business Idea turned out as the most important aspect for CS
students.
The results could have consequences for the development of entrepreneurship curricula
for IT students. Above all, different factors drive IS and CS students’ entrepreneurial intentions.
Therefore, designing effective curricula for both groups needs to take these differences into
consideration. Entrepreneurship courses for IS students should focus on fostering a positive
Attitude towards founding a company. In general, this may include presenting entrepreneurship
as an attractive career choice for students after graduation. More specifically, recommendations
based on the three formative drivers that were found to shape students’ Attitude may hold the
most promise. First, courses should emphasize that being an entrepreneur is not necessarily a
high-risk endeavor if certain steps are followed, such as creating a detailed business plan,
conducting a thorough market and competitor analysis, and choosing co-founders who
complement one’s strengths and competences. Second, entrepreneurship should be clearly
depicted as a great route to fulfill one’s own dream. Entrepreneurship provides a unique
opportunity to build a company that delivers products or services that a founder can be proud of.
Third, our analysis shows that not only intrinsic factors motivate potential founders. The
expectation of a high extrinsic monetary reward turned out to be a driving factor. Therefore,
courses could improve students’ Attitude by providing examples of founders who sold their
company successfully. However, even the drivers that were not found to be significant can guide
future entrepreneurial curricula. For example, courses do not need to downplay an entrepreneur’s
high work load, as it has no negative impact on students’ Attitude.
In contrast, having a Business Idea emerged as the strongest predictor for CS students.
Since having a Business Idea combines technological knowledge with the knowledge of how to
exploit it commercially, courses for CS students should not be limited to only teaching the latest
technologies. Rather, courses should present these technologies in a business-relevant way and
clearly show how these technologies might affect current businesses’ operations and may have
the potential to disrupt whole industries. We explicitly do not demand that CS courses be less
technical. Instead, we recommend embedding the technical content in a way that fosters the
perception of technology as a means and not as an end. This could mean a stronger focus on the
teaching of business models (Osterwalder, Pigneur & Tucci, 2005) and how new technologies
might have an impact on them. Moreover, courses in creative thinking could help CS students
connect different areas of their expertise in order to create innovative entrepreneurial ideas.
From a theoretical point of view, our study also indicates that studies that analyze
entrepreneurship can benefit from including the construct Business Idea in TPB’s base model.
Since the Business Idea turned out to be a significant predictor for both groups of students,
incorporating this construct can increase the predictive power of models based on the TPB.
Page 49
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
In summary, we hope that our study can provide valuable input for more data-driven
curriculum development efforts. It can help tailor entrepreneurship curricula to the specific needs
of different groups of IT students, which can in the long run influence a nation’s entrepreneurial
activity positively.
Limitations
There are some potential limitations to our study. First, we confined our study to students
of three German public universities. Further research with a more representative sample could
reveal whether this might have biased the results. Second, a replication of our study in different
countries could show if our results are culturally influenced, especially whether IS and CS
students in other countries are driven by different factors or whether aspects of the German
culture, such as Germany’s higher uncertainty avoidance and lower individualism compared to
the USA (Hofstede, 2001), could have had an impact. Third, since our study is cross-sectional, a
longitudinal study could show whether students’ intentions to become entrepreneurs actually
translate into starting a new company and whether the patterns identified as driving
entrepreneurial intentions turn out to be valid predictors. Fourth, although IS and CS students are
an important source of entrepreneurial activity in the software industry, our study did not include
students from other fields, such as business, economics, or mathematics. Further research should
examine whether these groups of students might be motivated by other factors than IS and CS
students. Fifth, regarding the impact of the Business Idea on students’ entrepreneurial intentions,
we would like to point out that the creation of a Business Idea is only one among the first steps in
a process-oriented view of teaching entrepreneurship. Our study therefore neglects the steps
following the creation of a Business Idea, among which are conducting a feasibility analysis,
creating a business plan, and developing financial forecasts (Neck & Greene, 2011). Further
research could analyze how an initial idea changes as it is developed throughout the different
steps and how this affects entrepreneurial intentions.
In addition to these points, further research could try to shed light on the costs of
developing an IS or CS entrepreneurship major and the question whether there would actually be
enough qualified teachers available. Further questions worth pursuing might be if deans would
be in favor of such a specialized major, if there is even enough demand, and whether our
findings hold true for the whole IT industry and not only for software companies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the following professors who made it
possible for us to distribute the survey in their classes: Prof. Martin Bichler, Prof. Andreas Butz,
Prof. Heinrich Hußmann, Prof. Helmut Krcmar, Prof. Richard Lenz, and Prof. Claudia Linnhoff-
Popien. The authors also appreciate the useful suggestions and comments received at the
American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) 2013, where a first version of this paper
was presented.
Page 50
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
REFERENCES
Abrahams, A. & T. Singh (2010). An Active, Reflective Learning Cycle for E-Commerce Classes: Learning about
E-commerce by Doing and Teaching. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(4), 383-390.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
179-211.
Bell, C., R. Mills & K. Fadel (2013). An Analysis of Undergraduate Information Systems Curricula: Adoption of the
IS 2010 Curriculum Guidelines. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 32(2), 73-94.
Boyles, T. (2012). 21st Century Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities and Entrepreneurial Competencies: A Model for
Undergraduate Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 15, 41-55.
Carlsson, S.A., J. Hedman & O. Steen (2010). Integrated Curriculum for a Bachelor of Science in Business
Information Systems Design (BISD 2010). Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
26(24), 525-546.
Cenfetelli, R.T. & G. Bassellier (2009). Interpretation of Formative Measurement in Information Systems Research.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 33(4), 689-708.
Chin, W.W. (1998). Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 22(1), vii-xvi.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Conners, S.E. & D. Ruth (2012). Factors Influencing Success in an Introductory Entrepreneurship Course. Journal
of Entrepreneurship Education, 15(SI), 63-73.
Crowley, E. (2003). Information System Security Curricula Development. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on
Information Technology Curriculum, 249-255.
Diamantopoulos, A. & H.M. Winklhofer (2001). Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to
Scale Development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269-277.
Engle, R.L., N. Dimitriadi, J.V. Gavidia, C. Schlaegel, S. Delanoe, I. Alvarado & B. Wolff (2010). Entrepreneurial
Intent: A Twelve-country Evaluation of Ajzen's Model of Planned Behavior. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16(1), 35-57.
Fornell, C. & D.F. Larcker (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Foster, J. & A. Lin (2003). Individual Differences in Learning Entrepreneurship and Their Implications for Web-
Based Instruction in E-Business and E-Commerce. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 455-
465.
Giarratana, M.S. (2004). The Birth of a New Industry: Entry by Start-ups and the Drivers of Firm Growth: The Case
of Encryption Software. Research Policy, 33(5), 787-806.
Hair, J.F., C.M. Ringle & M. Sarstedt (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 19(2), 139-151.
Henseler, J. & G. Fassott (2010). Testing Moderating Effects in PLS Path Models: An Illustration of Available
Procedures. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W.W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least
Squares (pp. 713-735). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences – Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations
Across Nations (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, C. & J. English (2004). A Contemporary Approach to Entrepreneurship Education. Education + Training,
46(8), 416-423.
Kautonen, T., M. van Gelderen & E.T. Tornikoski (2013). Predicting Entrepreneurial Behaviour: A Test of the
Theory of Planned Behaviour. Applied Economics, 45(6), 697-707.
Kor, P. & A. Abrahams (2007). Teaching Information System Students to be Entrepreneurs: A dot.com Case Study.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20, 497-517.
Kozlinska, I. (2011). Contemporary Approaches to Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Business Management,
4, 205-220.
Page 51
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Krueger Jr, N.F., M.D. Reilly & A.L. Carsrud (2000). Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of
Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.
Kuckertz, A. (2013). Entrepreneurship Education: Status Quo and Prospective Developments. Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 16(SI), 59-71.
MacCallum, R.C. & M.W. Brown (1993). The Use of Causal Indicators in Covariance Structure Models: Some
Practical Issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 533-541.
MacMillan, I. & J. Katz (1992). Idiosyncratic Milieus of Entrepreneurship Research: The Need for Comprehensive
Theories. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 1-8.
Neck, H.M. & P.G. Greene (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of
Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.
Noll, C. & M. Wilkins (2002). Critical Skills of IS professionals: A Model for Curriculum Development. Journal of
Information Technology Education: Research, 1(1), 143-154.
Osterwalder, A., Y. Pigneur & C.L. Tucci (2005). Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the
Concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 1-40.
Ringle, C.M., S. Wende & R.R. Sinkovics (2005). SmartPLS 2.0. Retrieved September 4, 2013, fromhttp://smartpls.de
Schilling, J. & R. Klamma (2010). The Difficult Bridge between University and Industry: A Case Study in
Computer Science Teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 367-380.
Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR Decade Award: Delivering on the Promise of Entrepreneurship as a
Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10-20.
Shane, S. & S. Venkataraman (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. The Academy of
Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Shapero A. (1982). Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (pp. 72-90). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Stephan, U. (2008). Culture of Entrepreneurship (C-ENT)/Kultur der Selbständigkeit: Konzeptualisierung und erste
Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung einer unternehmertumsförderlichen Kultur. Marburg,
Germany: Philipps-Universität Marburg.
Shook, C. L., & C. Bratianu (2010). Entrepreneurial Intent in a Transitional Economy: An Application of the Theory
of Planned Behavior to Romanian Students. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
6(3), 231-247.
The Economist. (January 18, 2014). A Cambrian Moment. Retrieved September 16, 2014, fromhttp://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593580-cheap-and-ubiquitous-building-blocks-digital-
products-and-services-have-caused
Topi, H., J.S. Valacich, R.T. Wright, K. Kaiser, J.F. Nunamaker Jr., J.C. Sipior & G.-J. de Vreede (2010). IS 2010:
Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems. Communications of
the Association for Information Systems, (26)18, 359-428.
USA Today. (August 10, 2014). Look Out, Silicon Valley: London Tech is on the Rise. Retrieved September 16,
2014, fromhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/08/10/london-tech-scene-on-the-rise/13665993/
Venkatesh, V., M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis & F.D. Davis (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology:
Toward a Unified View. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Wanberg, C.R. & J.T. Banas (2000). Predictors and Outcomes of Openness to Changes in a Reorganizing
Workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.
Welsh, D.H., & W.L. Tullar (2014). A Model of Cross Campus Entrepreneurship and Assessment. Entrepreneurship
Research Journal, 4(1), 95-115.
Page 52
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Page 53
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE ‘BUSINESS CONCEPT’ COMPETITION AS A
‘BUSINESS PLAN’ ALTERNATIVE FOR NEW AND
GROWING ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS:
WHAT’S THE BIG IDEA?
Robert Laud, William Paterson University
Stephen Betts, William Paterson University
Sam Basu, William Paterson University
ABSTRACT
‘Business Plan’ competitions are a proven way to create buzz for entrepreneurship
programs. They generate significant excitement and interest among students, and increase
awareness of the program among the larger community. Unfortunately the expense, complexity
and resource requirements of such competitions puts them out of the reach of new and small
programs. In this presentation we will discuss the benefits and challenges of business
competitions. We will also describe an innovative approach - the ‘Business Concept’
competition, which emphasizes the basic ideas driving a business without requiring a full
‘Business Plan’. Additionally we will outline some of the essential activities and key lessons
learned from our competition process. The proposed method has been successfully piloted. We
found that it fostered creativity and involvement among students, strengthened relationships with
other schools within the university and resulted in positive publicity for our new entrepreneurship
program.
INTRODUCTION
‘Business Plan’ competitions foster creativity and involvement among students, and
publicity for an entrepreneurship program. Unfortunately the complexity and expense of such
competitions make them out of the reach of small and new programs. In this paper we will
describe an alternative for growing programs that still generates significant excitement and
interest - the ‘Business Concept’ competition - as successfully run at William Paterson
University.
The primary difference between our ‘business concept’ and ‘business plan’ competitions
is in the degree of rigor and development. In the ‘concept’ competition, the primary idea was of
utmost importance and the judging criteria were very flexible. Participants did not have to fully
develop all aspects of the idea. The initial stages of the competition required only a one page
description. The intent was that by leaving the requirements simple, students with all types of
ideas at any stage of development could enter. The result was a large number and variety of
ideas submitted, and a lot of interest across the school. From approximately 80 entries, 8
finalists were chosen. They worked with faculty mentors to more fully develop their idea. Each
Page 54
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
of the finalists was given a half hour to present their idea to an audience of judges, students,
faculty and invited guests.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS
Entrepreneurship programs are among the fastest growing initiatives in modern colleges
and universities (Mattare, 2010; Yu & Man 2009). For the student, they tap into the dream of
starting a business and watching it grow and develop. The programs provide training and
opportunities to make those dreams come true. To the college the programs mean a chance to
connect with the outside community, to facilitate meaningful projects, attract the best and
brightest students and gain prestige and recognition. There are examples of successful and
prospering entrepreneurship programs that can serve as aspirational reference points. The
challenge is getting from a standing start to becoming an established program. This can be easy
if a donor or set of donors share the college’s vision and will bankroll the program as it grows.
More often than not, benefactors get involved as a result of initial success, not before. So how
does a college with few resources develop a program? In this paper we will address one of the
strategies used by William Paterson University – a ‘Business Concept’ competition.
An ideal entrepreneurship program has significant funding, external stakeholders in a
variety of fields, such a venture capital, that get involved in programs and activities, students
interested in entrepreneurship and professors who teach and conduct research about
entrepreneurship, as well as provide assistance to entrepreneurs at various stages in their venture,
perhaps even a business incubator to help start businesses. However very few, if any, schools
can jump directly to this ideal state. The challenge is to develop and implement a plan to get
there.
Successful established programs often have a business plan competition. Planning is a
key success factor in small entrepreneurial firms (Botha & Robertson, 2014), Nunn & McGuire,
2010; Becherer & Helms, 2009; Hormozi, Sutton, McMinn & Lucio 2002). Nascent
entrepreneurs are more than 2 ½ times more likely to follow through on starting a business if
they have a business plan (Liao & Gartner, 2006). There also is wide agreement that
entrepreneurial education need to have experiential components (Vincent & Farlow, 2008), and
business plans are experiential learning (Kraus, Harms & Schwarz, 2006). There are a great
variety of these competitions. Some allow participation from external stakeholders, others are
limited to students. Some competitions have a theme or are associated with a cause such as
water (Anonymous, 2010a) or urban enterprise (Anonymous, 2011b). Companies have found
innovation competitions to generate ideas that they can sponsor (MacCormack, Murray &
Wagner, 2013). Many have significant prize money. The University of Maryland annual
competition gives away $75,000 (Anonymous, 2012b). Competitions often have an organization
or individual that sponsors it. The Florida Venture Forum sponsors a clean energy business plan
competition with $200,000 in prize money (Anonymous, 2012a). Another characteristic of these
competitions is that they are ongoing and repeated year after year. A culture and set of
expectations builds around them, as do ancillary activities. The University of Maryland has over
30 initiatives related to entrepreneurship (Anonymous, 2011a). Unfortunately such competitions
Page 55
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
are difficult to start if there is no existing culture and little available funding to support it. The
creative solution that we implemented was a business concept competition that concentrated on
the basic idea and did not require extensive planning and analysis on the part of the student to
participate.
‘BUSINESS CONCEPT’ COMPETITION
Our business concept competition was to be an outlet for our students to show their
entrepreneurial side. For the College of Business it is meant as a stepping stone or even a launch
pad to reaching higher level goals. From the start we had competing objectives and concerns.
We would like the competition to succeed, but we do not want to risk an embarrassing failure.
We would like to have many participants, but we also want high quality ideas. We ultimately
want involvement from a variety of internal and external stakeholders in our program, however
we are cautious about outside involvement in our first foray into this type of activity.
The key to the success of the competition was careful and deliberate planning. From the
start a set of coordinated goals and plans were developed. A flow chart and detailed task list was
developed. Table 1 shows the categories of tasks. Each category had a number of distinct
actionable tasks. As an example the ‘Flyer’ tasks are listed. It tells what needed to be done, in this
case where the flyers are distributed. It also included explanations and details such as who the
contact person is in the copy center, as well as the person on the ‘team’ that is responsible and
due dates. The core ‘team’ was two professors, a graduate assistant and additional help from the
dean’s office and other professors as needed. Activities were tracked and adjustments made along
the way.
One basic question was ‘can we get involvement?’ In order to foster involvement of both
students and faculty, workshops were given for each. There were class visits in targeted courses
informing students of the competition, as well as flyers and announcements. These were
augmented by workshops for developing ideas. Professors from a broad array of courses and
disciplines were recruited to help. Professors were needed initially to encourage students to
participate. Some professors held small preliminary competitions in their own courses in order
to generate student interest, others gave students extra credit. Once the finalists were
determined, professors volunteered to mentor students. Lastly, professors were encouraged to
bring their classes to the final presentations.
Table 1
BUSINESS CONCEPT COMPETITION TASK LIST
TASK Activity Responsibility Due Date Comment
Entrepreneurial Brief
Flyer*
Print and distribute Xerox
Contact John Smith
(x1234) for gloss copies
Post in COB, Main
Campus
Scott-other 9/19 Need Rajiv to id
additional temp
help
Page 56
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Student paper Post in student newspaper Scott 9/28
Other locations Any other places for
students--Announcements
Scott 9/21
Main campus faculty Send to main campus
faculty—through deans
Sam 9/2--22 Visits by Sam
and Bob
Plasma Screens
Website
Discussion -Main
Campus Deans
Class Visit
Competition Sponsorship
Professional Enrichment
Application Review
Judging
Awards
Other Advertising
Nov. 17 Event
*note – subtasks items under ‘flyer’ are filled in. Each other task had similar sub-tasks.
The goal was to keep the barriers to participate as low as possible. The rules to the
contest were readily available online. A full business plan was not necessary, just a
‘business concept’ – a good idea that could be developed. An online application process
made it easy to enter the competition. The initial application required very little information,
although participants could augment the one page form. There were over 75 entries, each
representing one or a team of students. A panel of professors reviewed the entries and narrowed
it down to 8 finalists. The finalists were a cross-section of the kinds of ideas submitted. Among
the finalists were A riding academy, a robot that cleared snow and an online digital school
yearbook. The eventual winner was ‘Beyond Bingo’, a place for senior citizens who lived on
their own where they could go on a daily basis to participate in all of the activities usually
found in an assisted living facility.
Finalists were paired with professors to develop their concepts. Some students
worked with 3 or 4 faculty members. Several classes of MBA students gave feedback to
practice presentations. The Assistant Director of a local New Jersey Small Business
Development Center stepped up to coach finalists, and the Dean of the College of Business
helped with the financial analyses. On the day of the competition the finalists gave 20-30
minute presentations to a panel of judges and an audience. The judges were local bankers, a
small business advisor and a faculty member. The audience varied from about 50 people to
over 120 at times during the day, including faculty, students and administrators from all
over the campus as well as guests. The winning concept was awarded $4,000, the runner up
got $2,000 and the third place got $1,000. The competition was an unqualified success – the
quality of the projects exceeded all expectations and the attendance at the event was greater
than anticipated.
Page 57
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
After the competition, faculty, administration and graduate assistants met to ‘debrief’ and
discuss the future. It was important to discuss the process to see what worked, what needs
improvement and to make preliminary plans for the next year’s competition.
1. Start small. Full business plan competitions are too big. A ‘concept’ competition allows for greater
participation
2. Plan everything. Use process flow charts. Have regular status reports.
3. Remain flexible. Things will not go as planned. Be prepared to make adjustments.
4. Recruit key faculty members from a variety of disciplines. Have them talk about it in class, mentor the
finalists and encourage their students to attend the final competition.
5. Keep barriers to participation as low as possible. Require a good idea, not a full plan. Have a one
page entry form
6. Hold workshops for students and faculty. This generates interest and greater quantity and quality of
entrees.
7. Follow up. Do not let this be a one-time event. Start planning on how to improve it for next time.
Our fist competition was held in the Fall semester. We intend on holding our second
competition in the Spring. The planning is already underway. Currently we are seeking external
partners that can be involved. In our first competition we avoided this because we did not know
the quantity and quality of the ideas that would be submitted. We chose Spring to give more
lead time for everyone involved. In retrospect we accomplished all that we wanted to and more.
Students have already begun to discuss their ideas with us. This indicates to us that we were
successful in moving towards creating awareness and establishing an entrepreneurial culture.
REFERENCES
Anonymous (2012a, Feb 28). The Florida venture forum to host the 2012 statewide collegiate business plan
competition. Business Wire,
Anonymous (2012b). First look west searches for university students for clean energy business competition
Manufacturing Close - Up.
Anonymous (2011a, Nov 4). White house recognizes Mtech's David Barbe as champion of change. PR Newswire.
Anonymous.(2011b, Oct 4, 2011). MillerCoors prepares to award $150,000 to small business owners, extends
application deadline PR Newswire.
Anonymous (2010a). Imagine H20 water prize announces winners. American Water Works Association Journal,
102(5), 59-59.
Becherer, R., & Helms, M. (2009). The value of business plans for new ventures: Company and entrepreneur
outcomes. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 20(2), 80-96.
Botha, M., & Robertson, C. L. (2014). Potential entrepreneurs' assessment of opportunities through the rendering of a
business plan. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 17(3), 249-265.
Hormozi, A., Sutton, G., McMinn, R., & Lucio, W. (2002). Business plans for new or small businesses: Paving the
path to success. Management Decision, 40(7), 755-763.
Kraus, S., R. Harms & E. Schwarz (2006). Strategic planning in smaller enterprises - new empirical findings.
Management Research Review, 29(6), 334-344.
Liao, J., & W. Gartner (2006). The effects of pre-venture plan timing and perceived environmental uncertainty on the
persistence of emerging firms. Small Business Economics, 27(1), 23-23.
Page 58
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
MacCormack, A., Murray, F., & Wagner, E. (2013). Spurring innovation through competitions. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 55(1), 25-32.
Mattare, M. (2010). Use of self 101: The case for teaching personal development in the entrepreneurship curriculum.
New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 17-28.
Nunn, L., & McGuire, B. (2010). The importance of a good business plan. Journal of Business & Economics
Research, 8(2), 95-105.
Vincett, P., & Farlow, S. (2008). "Start-a-business": An experiment in education through entrepreneurship. Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 274-288.
Christina W.M. Yu, & Thomas W.Y. Man. (2009). Social interaction and the formation of entrepreneurial
characteristics. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(8), 595-613.
Page 59
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
PUBLISHING CHILDREN’S BOOKS WITH
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS: REFLECTING ON
STUDENT INNOVATION THROUGH THE LENS OF
TONY WAGNER
Stephanie A. Fernhaber, Butler University
Erin Albert, Butler University
Angela Lupton, Butler University
ABSTRACT
Given the interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurship, a model is shared for writing,
illustrating, and publishing children’s books through a collaborative/interprofessional team of
students and faculty mentors across colleges at Butler University. While recognizing the intrinsic
benefits of having diverse groups of students work on self-defined projects, the creators of this
model also recognized the alignment between such a project and the potential for nurturing
innovation. Specifically, such an approach is consistent with the seven survival skills and need
for an innovation mindset put forth by Tony Wagner (2010, 2012). Therefore, we present our
project through the lens of his framework. The process for implementing the project is discussed,
as well as challenges and ways in which the project could be customized for other universities.
INTRODUCTION
In his examination of the global achievement gap, Tony Wagner (2010) outlined a set of
seven survival skills needed by our youth in order to contribute in today’s workplace and society:
critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration across networks and leading by influence,
agility and adaptability, initiative and entrepreneurialism, effective oral and written
communication, accessing and analyzing information, and curiosity and imagination. In his 2012
book, Creating Innovators, Wagner followed up through emphasizing how these survival skills
needed to be coupled with the development of an innovation mindset. The irony of the situation
is that many educational institutions themselves are not focusing on these skillsets in their
strategies for instilling the skills in their students. While rigid academic structures and the
increased pressure for quantifiable evidence of learning may be partly to blame, being able to
develop learning environments that embrace all of these survival skills is difficult and requires
us, as academicians, to become innovators ourselves. It requires pushing against the existing
structure and design of our classes and departments to experiment, fail, learn, and start all over
again.
We propose that entrepreneurship serves as a context in which such a learning
environment can be developed, and offer a model developed at Butler University where
collaborative teams of college students and faculty mentors work together to write, illustrate, and
publish children’s books. This project started in 2007 as an innovative senior thesis project
within the College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences and the Jordan College of the Arts, and has
since evolved into an annual project involving four colleges (College of Pharmacy and Health
Sciences, College of Business, College of Education, and Jordan College of the Arts). Five books
Page 60
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
have been successfully published, and one has failed (see Exhibit A for a complete list). Along
the way, learning has taken place—for both the students and faculty mentors involved. In the
space that follows, we share the background and history of the project. We then outline how this
project meets the survival skills and innovation principles put forth by Tony Wagner. Finally, we
discuss challenges and possible extensions.
OVERVIEW OF THE CHILDREN’S BOOK PROJECT
The original idea for the children’s book project dates to 2007, as an innovative option
for pharmacy students to use for their capstone course, which requires a health-focused project
that is presented at the annual Butler University Undergraduate Research Conference. In this
initial year, only pharmacy students were involved, and art students co-developed the cover art
for this project through a class collaboration. In subsequent years, education students were added
in order to leverage their respective expertise. Eventually, business students were added.
Students from each of these areas bring a distinct set of skills to the creation and production of
children’s books on health-related topics. Pharmacy students provide research-based knowledge
of health issues; education students utilize their understanding of high-quality children’s
literature and curriculum development; business students provide the understanding of business
planning, marketing, and fundraising; and art students bring their experience with the illustrative
process. While the books have primarily focused on health topics for pre-Kindergarten to early
elementary-aged students, we have recently experimented with other topics and age levels with a
book this year that focused on Indiana history, in line with and endorsed by the Indiana
Bicentennial Commission and designed specifically for the fourth-grade state history curriculum.
All of the book projects, from 2008 through 2015, are listed in Exhibit A.
The book project crosses semesters and currently runs on an annual cycle starting in May.
The initial task is determining the number of book projects being taken on, as well as their
general topics, and finding faculty mentors. In our experience, faculty members have been
excited to participate in the project because of the opportunity to work with colleagues outside
their typical areas of expertise. The involvement of multiple faculty members also spreads out
the time commitment and allows fresh ideas into the process. The ultimate goal is for the time
commitment to be minimal on the part of the faculty mentors, as this is truly meant to be a
student-designed and student-driven project. However, faculty do respond to bi-weekly team
updates, provide guiding thoughts and questions, assist in editing, review any legal agreements
with the publisher, and help to mediate the inevitable challenging conversations that are part of
the creative process. The student recruitment process varies by college; some colleges issue a
general call for applications and others invite specific students to participate. In the College of
Pharmacy and Health Sciences, where the project is part of a specific course, interest in this
project type has become so high that students now have to apply by submitting an application
and writing sample. In the other colleges, students can receive independent study credit and/or
the opportunity to position themselves uniquely in the job market because of the experience.
When applicable, the grading of the course also varies by college. For example, business
students are assessed by their level of professionalism, a final reflection paper, and the
development of a portfolio showcasing the experience that is meant to be shared with potential
employers.
The kick-off meeting for each project takes place in May. This is an important event
because it is the first time the entire team is together. This meeting incorporates the sharing of
Page 61
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
previous book projects' histories and lessons learned. Students then meet in teams to get to know
each other and to work out their initial plan for the project. We recognize that due to the scope of
the project and the number of our students who are participating in clinical and internship
experiences during this point in their college careers, project execution also needs to be
innovative. Therefore, after the initial face-to-face meeting, most of the collaborative process
takes place via Skype, Google+, a closed Facebook group, Dropbox, or other electronic
mechanisms. These virtual workspaces allow for meetings to take place regardless of location,
for editing to take place and be shared continually during the writing process, and for all
members of the group to have access to all parts of the project development, regardless of their
area of expertise.
Throughout the summer, students collaboratively develop the storylines. This work is
accompanied by a market research process by the business students so that there is solid
background information regarding what is already being done on a given topic, as well as
evidence for the success factors applicable to a specific customer target. We have found it useful
to have teams break up into two groups to come up with two different story ideas, in order to
reduce groupthink (Janis, 1972) and offer more ideas with which to develop the storyline. The
full team generally includes two students from each college (eight students), so by splitting the
team into two work groups it provides the opportunity for each storyline to be developed through
an interdisciplinary lens (four students, one from each college). In some cases, one story idea
will be chosen for the project, while at other times there is a blend of the two ideas. Once the
main storyline is selected, the writing begins and a storyboard, including initial sketches of the
characters, is constructed.
In the fall, the project shifts from writing to editing and finalizing. The art is also
completed and approved. In addition, price quotes are worked out and a contract is signed with a
publisher. Historically, we have worked with the same publisher for each of the books, due to the
fact that only certain publishers are able to accommodate the size, layout, and imaging needed
for a children’s book. However, student teams are given the opportunity to explore alternative
publication options, including e-books and traditional print publications. Students also need to
start thinking about how they will finance the project (either with a loan or pre-sales). In some
instances, online crowdfunding has been used. Drawing on small contributions from a relatively
large number of people, crowdfunding leverages the “wisdom of crowds” in validating the
quality of the proposed product, which drives the project's success (Mollick, 2014; Surowiecki,
2014). Students in the 2012-2013 book project ran a successful Kickstarter campaign, while one
of our 2014-2015 book projects used Indiegogo. The goal is to always have everything finalized
with the publisher by the first of December. It should be noted that students are responsible for
the funding required to put the book into production, regardless of the publisher they choose.
Exploration of the risk/reward of utilizing things like crowdfunding sites is part of the learning
experience. If the money is not raised, the option of self-publishing through a minimal-cost
service such as an e-book on Amazon.com is an option, but so is the possibility of the book not
being published at all. This is not a fail-safe project, and the realities that exist in the complicated
world of book writing and publishing provide the very real possibility that the book may not
make it all the way to production. However, to date only one out of the six books has failed to be
published.
The spring semester is exciting, as the final product is delivered. However, there is still
more work to be done by the student authors. Books need to be delivered to those who had
Page 62
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
purchased them through the pre-sale process. In addition, there is a heavy push for continuous
marketing and sales. There are presentation opportunities for students to share their observations
and experiences in an academic setting, such as the Butler University Undergraduate Research
Conference, as well as with local and national organizations that are interested in supporting
and/or purchasing copies of the books. Students typically schedule a book-signing event.
A more detailed description of the steps and timeline used at Butler University for the
children’s book project is seen below. This is an approximate timeline as each project is
different, and we continue to innovate and experiment each year.
Table 1
TYPICAL TIMELINE AND TASKS FOR CHILDREN’S BOOK PROJECT
End of Spring Semester Establish faculty mentors
Recruit students and set up structure for accountability
Convene initial team meeting
Summer Conduct research and choose overarching topic
Divide into two subgroups to come up with ideas (reduce groupthink)
Meet again to finalize idea (or variation); storyboard this concept
Start developing drawings of main characters
Fall Semester Finish writing and art
Present project at Senior Project Poster Session (pharmacy students)
Contract with publisher
Develop marketing plan and start pre-sales (possibly through crowdfunding)
Develop and finalize financial plan
Spring Semester Market and sell book
Present book at Butler University Undergraduate Research Conference
Organize book-signing party
Deliver books
Take advantage of presentation opportunities
APPLICABILITY: SURVIVAL SKILLS AND INNOVATION MINDSET
In The Global Achievement Gap, Tony Wagner unveiled a “core set of survival skills for
today’s workplace, as well as for lifelong learning and active citizenship” (Wagner, 2010, p. 14)
that are not being adequately taught even in our best school systems. These skills include:
1. Critical thinking and problem solving
2. Collaboration across networks and leading by influence
3. Agility and adaptability
4. Initiative and entrepreneurialism
5. Effective oral and written communication
6. Accessing and analyzing information
7. Curiosity and imagination
While Wagner targeted much of his discussion on K-12 schools, it can be argued that colleges
and universities are similarly responsible (if not more so) for developing suitable learning
environments. This is a task, many feel, for which higher education is currently unprepared.
Our understanding of learning is expanding in ways that are at least partially
incompatible with the structures of higher education institutions. In addition, these
Page 63
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
developments are occurring at the same time that higher education is being asked to
become more accountable for what students are learning. Ironically, these pressures for
accountability are making us simultaneously more thoughtful and more limited in what
we count as learning. The question that campus leaders need to address is how to reinvent
a curriculum that lives in this new space (Bass, 2012, p. 24).
This reinvention means working across areas of curricular expertise as well as crossing
boundaries of institutional organization. “Effective collaboration requires several skills and
attitudes including the ability to take the perspective of others, speak a common language,
manage conflict, conceptualize. . .problems in a broad fashion, and share resources, knowledge,
and skills” (Welch et al., 1992, p. 2). As summarized in Table 2 and detailed below, the
children’s book project serves as a platform for each of these survival skills.
Table 2
APPLICABILITY OF THE SURVIVAL SKILLS TO THE CHILDREN’S BOOK PROJECT
Survival Skill Children’s Book Project
Critical thinking and problem
solving
The project involves lots of ambiguity, especially dealing with the publisher
and the “real-world” orientation.
There is a need to figure out how to be “edutaining.”
Collaboration across networks
and leading by influence
The project involves upper-level students majoring in discrete disciplines
(i.e., networks) and needing to serve as experts in their respective areas.
Deeper collaboration skills are developed due to the diversity of the team.
Agility and adaptability There are many roadblocks (e.g., Kickstarter did not approve an initial
submission), and students need to figure out how to adapt.
Students also need to adapt to each other's work schedules involving
internships, classes, rotations, etc.
Initiative and entrepreneurialism Faculty members serve as advisors, but do not run, lead, or develop timelines.
Students themselves must take the initiative.
Capitalization (e.g., crowdfunding campaigns) and sales processes entail
entrepreneurial risk.
Effective oral and written
communication
Students must meet the challenge of learning how to communicate at a child’s
level within the book. Additionally, the project requires clear written
communication in the final outcome, as well as practice in oral
communication within a team setting and when marketing the book.
Accessing and analyzing
information
Research must be conducted on the children’s book industry, followed by
analysis and decision-making based on this step.
Curiosity and imagination Curiosity and imagination skills are used in coming up with the story. In order
to prevent groupthink, students typically storyboard two different ideas
and then come together. These skills are also used in finding ways to
market the book.
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Critical thinking is “the disciplined art of ensuring that you use the best thinking you are
capable of in any set of circumstances” (Paul & Elder, 2014, p. 41) and requires asking lots of
questions and checking assumptions. A survey of more than 400 employers found that critical
thinking and creativity/innovation, which are both elements of the problem-solving process, were
expected to increase substantially in importance for successive cohorts of workers entering the
Page 64
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
economy (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). The need for students to think critically and to
problem solve is at the heart of the children’s book project. Representation on each team by
students from multiple professional disciplines challenges the assumptions that individual team
members bring from their own academic arena. For example, some of the business students have
been questioned by their peers as to why a website is needed and whether crowdfunding really
makes sense, given the requisite fees. Moreover, education students have had to explain how
reading levels are established, and how the criteria for quality in children’s literature are
substantiated. In many cases, research needs to be conducted in order to check assumptions and
help guide the team with decision making—especially in ensuring that the book is both
educational and entertaining (“edutaining”). This process indeed helps the students “think about
their thinking” and become more aware of biases.
Collaboration across Networks and Leading by Influence
The “silo effect” of departments working separately, rather than as a team, has not yet
disappeared within the corporate area and is noted to be a significant growing pain (Gleeson &
Rozo, 2014). There has been a conscious effort in the health-care field, especially, to shift toward
a more collaborative, interprofessional approach (Epstein, 2014). This is perhaps the survival
skill that, within the college environment, can be most difficult for existing classes to undertake.
Like businesses, universities similarly tend toward silo structures, as different schools, colleges,
and departments are developed and focused on their specialties—with good reasons, as
professional education within each college is critical to develop expertise in professions. While
general education courses may involve students from different backgrounds, upper-level courses
within a major are typically narrowed to people with similar interests pursuing a similar degree.
Certainly, collaborative learning and team-centered projects are common in contemporary
educational settings, but rarely is there an opportunity for students to collaborate with peers who
have developed different expertise. The children’s book project is unique in this way, in that it
allows upperclassmen to collaborate across networks (i.e., across colleges) and also provides the
opportunity to “lead by influence” as the expert in their area. One of the richest experiences as
educators working in these book projects has been watching students teach each other about their
chosen disciplines. At the same time, students develop a level of respect for each other’s
professions.
Agility and Adaptability
Being able to adapt is critical in the children’s book project. This is perhaps most evident
in the evolution of the book from its first draft when it is initially storyboarded to the final
product that is printed. There is a need to adjust based on the needs of funders and publishers as
well as on feedback provided by mentors and the team. Other evidence of being agile and
adaptable is simply working with each other’s schedules, as most students working on these
book projects have part- or full-time class schedules, internships, and travel schedules. Also, the
key skillset of interdisciplinary flexibility helps students understand that in the working world,
they will also encounter people who do not share their backgrounds and educational experiences.
Page 65
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Initiative and Entrepreneurialism
According to a recent survey, more than 50% of college-aged students would like to
someday start their own business (Kauffman Foundation, 2011). Thus, pursuing an
entrepreneurial task such as writing/publishing their own book will likely serve as an innovative
and inviting way to engage students. In contrast to programs that aim to teach entrepreneurship,
we propose the utilization of entrepreneurship as a means to engage students. Being
entrepreneurial requires a combination of taking initiative, being innovative, and taking risks
(Covin & Slevin, 1989). All three elements are clearly present in taking on the creation of a new
project such as the children’s book. Moreover, the crowdfunding concept, in which all the money
is on the line, itself demonstrates the acceptance of risk; for example, the Kickstarter platform
specifies that if the goal is not attained, none of the money is earned.
Effective Oral and Written Communication
It should come as no surprise in a world where texting is the norm that effective oral and
written communication is a skillset that requires more emphasis and development at the
collegiate level (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; Hart Research Associates, 2013). Raise this
issue with any college educator of incoming freshmen and the educator will surely agree. Yet
communication is critical, because without it a great idea loses credibility. As part of the project,
the student team has to put forth significant effort toward writing, editing, and developmental
appropriateness for the end-user. Students from the College of Education share their expertise
and ensure that language is at a level children can understand. Also, students have to orally
communicate the premise of the book—they have to sell the book itself before it is written.
Creating a video for a Kickstarter campaign is another example of a communicative skillset that
students need to employ in order to successfully complete the project.
Accessing and Analyzing Information
Throughout the project, there is a wealth of information that needs to be gathered and
analyzed. Early on, market research needs to be conducted on the children’s literature publishing
industry. As this is an industry that is changing with the influx of technology, with more than
5,000 new titles added each year, new data and opportunities constantly need to be examined. In
the latter part of the project, students need to contact different publishers for quotes, analyze
detailed information and contracts, and make decisions accordingly. A recent example was the
contract around the Kickstarter campaign that students needed to understand before project
implementation. They were surprised to discover dual costs for this capitalization: a percentage
taken out by Kickstarter, and transaction fees assigned by credit card companies. Based on this
information, they examined other crowdsourcing options and ultimately had to make a business
decision on which direction to take.
Curiosity and Imagination
Pink (2005) emphasized the importance of “right-brain” thinkers in today’s economy. As
students are developing a new children’s book, there is an enormous reliance on creativity and
using their imaginations (i.e., employing right-brain thinking). They need to come up with
Page 66
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
characters, a plot, a storyline, illustrations, and more. At the outset, students typically break into
two subgroups in order to reduce the possibility of groupthink (Janis, 1972). By having fewer
members in each subgroup, the imagination and creativity of each student is further leveraged
and drawn out.
In his more recent book, Creating Innovators (2012), Wagner expanded on The Global
Achievement Gap by declaring that the seven survival skills are necessary, but not sufficient.
Students also need to be taught to be innovators. Such an approach requires an emphasis on
perseverance, willingness to experiment, taking calculated risks, tolerating failure, and design
thinking. These innovation skills can be taught through the principles of play, passion, and
purpose. Again, the children’s book project offers an opportunity for students to experience each
of these principles.
Play
It makes intuitive sense that being innovative involves a sense of play (Pink, 2005).
Simply put, if students are enjoying themselves, they are likely to be more engaged (Hromek &
Roffey, 2009). The book projects indeed represent an opportunity for students to have fun,
perhaps most evidenced by the high level of excitement during the initial kick-off meeting. As
noted by one student, the idea of writing and having their name on a published book is something
they only dreamed of happening before graduating from college.
Passion
Passion refers to a “strong inclination toward an activity that people like, that they find
important, and in which they invest time and energy” (Vallerand et al., 2003, p. 756). Indeed,
passion is frequently mentioned as important for entrepreneurs (Breugst, Domurath, Patzelt, &
Klaukien, 2012). Within the children’s book projects, students are able to select a topic that they
feel particularly passionate about. In some cases, the general theme is provided (e.g., asthma),
and then students with an interest in that area sign up. In the most recent year, students were able
to select a health-care topic in which they had particular interest. This passion equates to a more
engaged student, and thus a better outcome in terms of the actual book and the commitment to
learning that is taking place.
Purpose
Perhaps most important, the children’s book project allows students an opportunity not
only to utilize their emerging expertise collaboratively, but also in a purposeful way. Purpose
serves as an essential intrinsic motivator (Pink, 2011). Most of the books to date have been
geared toward helping to educate children about an important topic. For example, one student
team produced a book on asthma, He Huffed and He Puffed But…A Tale of a Wolf with Asthma.
This team felt especially proud when the Indiana State Department of Health purchased more
than 700 copies to distribute to children across the state of Indiana. Thus, the students felt that
they were contributing and their project had a purpose.
Page 67
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 3
APPLICABILITY OF INNOVATION PRINCIPLES TO THE CHILDREN’S BOOK PROJECT
Innovation Principles Children’s Book Project
Play The book project is clearly fun. Students are nearly giddy at the early
meetings and are amazed to have the opportunity to actually publish a
book (with their name on it!).
Passion Students decide what the topic will be, based upon their interests.
Purpose Students feel there is a purpose behind their books because they will be
helping to educate on an important topic. Their final outcome has clear
value.
Babson College professors Neck, Greene, and Brush (2014) recently outlined the
practices of entrepreneurship education, which are based on play, empathy, creation,
experimentation, and reflection. While Wagner discussed the idea of play, his work only hinted
at the other four aspects, which deserve further discussion in regard to the children's book
project. Foremost, there is the importance of empathy—defined as a “social and emotional skill
that helps us feel and understand the emotions, circumstances, intentions, thoughts, and needs of
others, such that we can offer sensitive, perceptive, and appropriate communications and
supports” (McLaren, 2013, p. 4). As each book is designed to target a specific audience, students
have to make additional efforts to empathize with the end-user. For instance, with the book on
asthma, students needed to get to know and empathize with both asthmatic and non-asthmatic
readers and consider how they might react. With the book Pharmacy and Me, students wanted
young readers to understand the role of the pharmacist. The practice of creation is self-evident,
given the creative process needed to develop an entire story as well as create the final product.
Throughout this process, there is a lot of experimentation that occurs as the students try certain
routes and need to constantly adapt to the circumstances. Last, the importance of reflection
cannot be emphasized enough. While each college takes a different approach to the way in which
the overall project is reflected—whether it is a written document or a conversation—this is
indeed the end of the cycle where students reflect not only on what they learned, but also on how
this experience will affect them going forward. With Pharmacy and Me, for example, reflection
was captured by College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences students in a collective summary of
their experience, passion, and challenges, published in The American Pharmacists Association
student publication, Student Pharmacist.
OUTCOMES
Feedback from student participants has been extremely positive, and the current demand
for being selected to participate in the project is high. As students have shared their experiences
with peers, a resultant pipeline of interested participants has minimized the need for extensive
recruiting. From an instructor perspective, there is high value for this type of learning experience
as well, as it strikes at the highest summit of Bloom’s Taxonomy—creating. We thus view the
children’s book project in line with other interdisciplinary entrepreneurship programs that have
demonstrated success (Johnson & Envick, 2014). However, the exact nature of the benefits can
be perhaps best illustrated by considering the discipline from which the students originate. From
the perspective of the College of Business, this experience is highly valued due to the fact that
students will need to constantly interact with others in different areas in their future careers.
Page 68
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Thus, an accounting major will soon need to work with business colleagues in research and
development, marketing, etc. This experience highlights the diversity of student engagement, and
how working as a team truly has the potential to do amazing things. It also provides the
opportunity for business students to experience the challenges associated with project
management, much of which must be completed virtually or online due to team members' busy
schedules. Last, it challenges students to leverage their skills in a real-world setting when it
comes to conducting research, raising funds, keeping records, marketing, and selling.
For pharmacy students, the experience helps them to become better pharmacists, because
they are teaching through writing, and all pharmacists are teachers. Furthermore, students learn
how to communicate with children at a level they can understand, through collaboration with
their College of Education peers. Leaders in any profession, including pharmacy, also write and
publish, and through this opportunity, students are published authors prior to graduation from
pharmacy school. The pharmacy curriculum is heavy in clinical and pharmacological education,
and the opportunity to write and reflect often is not emphasized; however, through this project,
students have the opportunity to polish their written communication skills as adjuncts to their
developing clinical and pharmacological acumen.
Within the Jordan College of the Arts, students benefit by utilizing their craft to develop
an integral part of the story. They are practicing artists who achieve a real-world outcome. These
students are working as they would if they had a client, or are working in a creative team as the
creative leads of the project. They must first learn team collaboration, then convey an idea from
the team to paper, and finally create characters and visual images that complement the storyline.
Students learn how to creatively collaborate and work with other students who are not trained
illustrators.
In order to continue to nurture classroom innovation, we must provide the instructional
leaders of these classrooms with their own experiences in developing and evolving innovative
ideas. For preservice teachers, much of their work around innovation will come from creating
environments that best foster the solution-focused, collaborative, problem-solving thinkers that
are needed in our 21st-century schools and businesses. In combination with effective teacher
education programs, preservice teachers must also have the opportunity to participate as learners
in innovative projects that allow for diverse groups to come together to create a unique and
dynamic outcome. As we think about the importance that projects such as these can play in the
development of preservice teachers, we need only look toward what education researchers and
practitioners have identified. In a 2013 report, Teaching 2030: Leveraging Teacher Preparation
2.0, the authors noted that “preparation programs can do a great deal to model the instruction,
collaboration, and leadership that they want their candidates to practice as teachers” (Allen et al.,
2013, p. 16). They went on to specifically comment on the importance of interdisciplinary work
in modeling these practices. “An interdisciplinary education is critical to ensuring that teachers
know how to think critically, analyze situations, and apply what they know in a wide range of
school environments, tailoring instruction to meet individual students’ needs along the way”
(Allen et al., 2013, p. 29).
As we move toward the next steps in our research on these projects, it is our intent to
quantify the impact on students utilizing the seven survival skills outlined by Wagner (2010) as
the basis for our study. By looking at each of the areas, we will further investigate the impact on
the subgroups of students within specific majors as well as the broader impact on the cross-
disciplinary teams.
Page 69
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
CHALLENGES AND POSSIBLE EXTENSIONS
Although an interdisciplinary project such as this has effected great value and learning by
both students and faculty, it is not without its challenges. Perhaps one of the most pressing issues
for replicating such a process is working with the existing course infrastructure to make this
happen. At Butler University, we have found the structure of the course to vary across colleges,
with some offering it as part of a required senior thesis project and others as independent study.
Still other students voluntarily participate without receiving any credit. A secondary issue is how
to finance the book project. We were fortunate to receive some initial grant funds to offset
publication costs and supplement the income from purchased books. As the project has evolved,
we have since moved to either offering the teams a loan from this fund and/or asking them to
pre-sell a certain number of books ahead of time. In this case, the risk is minimized and an order
is placed only after cash is received. Most important, we have learned as advisors not to set
overly rigid policies but rather to leave the process rather ambiguous so that students can take
initiative and figure it out independently.
While the process described above has worked well at Butler University, it is a constant
work in process—with learning, customizing, and evolution taking place each year. Nonetheless,
there are likely many components that could be replicated elsewhere. While we encourage
imitation, we do so with hesitation. There is a need to customize the process to each university.
At Butler, for example, pharmacy is one of the largest colleges, and thus it makes sense for us to
focus on health-related topics; also, the project idea originated with the pharmacy program. At
other schools, different subject matter may be more appropriate—whether at a school of design,
engineering, math, medicine, or any other professional area.
Innovative pedagogy was at the heart of the learning objectives developed by faculty as
they came together from across campus to develop this project—as we attempted to exemplify
the idea of creating within Bloom’s Taxonomy. Students learn best through integrative, creative
projects. While the pedagogical structure is utilized in a higher education environment, it also
provides an opportunity for incubating the growth of innovative educators as they participate in
processes that they will use with students in their own classrooms and larger school
communities.
With technology constantly evolving, and with the increasing use of tablets and other
electronic reading devices, it is acknowledged that such forces have affected the children’s book
industry. Yet we think this simply offers further room for evolution of the book project. Already,
the last book has been made available on Amazon.com as an e-book. What if students focused
solely on e-books (which are much less costly to publish) or secondarily on developing a
smartphone application as an extension of the project? The possibilities are endless.
As universities look to replicate this model on their campuses, the key is to begin by
finding like-minded colleagues to jump into the project, but with the caution that these
colleagues should cross multiple disciplines in order to model the interdisciplinary approach that
will be used by the students. Utilize existing structures on campus as much as possible so that the
project does not become another higher education silo that is a “best kept secret” at your
institution. For example, our students participate in an existing undergraduate research
conference hosted by our university, so that students can share the outcomes of the work. Finally,
don’t overlook constituent groups that might have an interest in the topic about which your
students are writing. Our students have found both funding and publicity partners in our state
department of health, drugstores, and even our state bicentennial commission.
Page 70
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
CONCLUSION
Through a diverse collaboration of multiple colleges within a university, students and
faculty can reap the benefits of interprofessional collaboration via writing and producing books.
Now that we, along with several groups of students at Butler University, have published several
books around health care and STEM subject matter over the course of several years, we hope to
spread the concept of interprofessional collaboration and entrepreneurial behaviors in students
moving forward. Through the framework of Wagner’s work (2010, 2012), we believe that we
have increased student learning in all seven domains—critical thinking; problem solving;
collaboration across networks and leading by influence and agility; acting entrepreneurially and
taking initiative; accessing and analyzing information; employing effective oral and written
communication; and curiosity and imagination. We hope projects like these flourish not only
now, but well into the future.
REFERENCES
Allen, M., D. Braunfeld, S. C’de Baca, C. Chandler, K. Cortelyou, S. Highley, . . . J. Holland (2013). Teaching
2030: Leveraging Teacher Preparation 2.0. Retrieved June 1, 2015, fromhttp://www.teachingquality.org/
sites/default/files/TEACHING_2030_Leveraging_Teacher_Preparation.pdf
Bass, R. (2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved
May 28, 2015, fromhttp://www.educause.edu/ero/article/disrupting-ourselves-problem-learning-higher-
education
Breugst, N., A. Domurath, H. Patzelt & A. Klaukien (2012). Perceptions of entrepreneurial passion and employees'
commitment to entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 36(1), 171-192.
Casner-Lotto, J. & L. Barrington (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic
knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. Retrieved June 1, 2015,
fromhttp://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/BED-06-Workforce.pdf
Covin, J. G. & D. P. Slevin (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments.
Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.
Epstein, N. N. (2014). Multidisciplinary in-hospital teams improve patient outcomes: A review. Surgical Neurology
International, Supplement, 7(5), 295-303.
Gleeson, B. & M. Rozo (2014). The silo mentality: How to break down the barriers. Forbes.com. Retrieved June 1,
2015, fromhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/brentgleeson/2013/10/02/the-silo-mentality-how-to-break-down-
the-barriers
Hart Research Associates (2013). It takes more than a major: Employee priorities for college learning and student
success. Retrieved June 1, 2015 fromhttps://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2013_
EmployerSurvey.pdf
Hromek, R. & S. Roffey (2009). Games as a pedagogy to promote social and emotional learning: “It’s fun and we
learn things.” Simulation and Gaming, 40(5), 626-644.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Johnson, J. E. & B. R. Envick (2014). Assessing the learning goal outcomes of an interdisciplinary entrepreneurship
cohort program: A comprehensive survey approach. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 17(1), 135-
149.
Kauffman Foundation (2011). Young Invincibles Policy Brief. Retrieved June 1, 2015 fromhttp://www.kauffman.
org/~/media/kauffman_org/research%20reports%20and%20covers/2011/11/millennials_study.pdf.
McLaren, K. (2013). The Art of Empathy: A Complete Guide to Life’s Most Essential Skills. Boulder, CO: Sounds
True.
Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1-
16.
Neck, H. K., P. G. Greene & C. G. Brush (2014). Teaching Entrepreneurship: A Practice-Based Approach.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Page 71
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Paul, R. & L. Elder (2014). Learning the art of critical thinking. Rotman Management, January, 40-45.
Pink, D. H. (2005). A Whole New Mind. New York: Penguin Group.
Pink, D. H. (2011). Dive. New York: Riverhead Books.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective
Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. New York: Doubleday.
Vallerand, R. J., C. Blanchard, G. Mageau, R. Koestner, C. Ratelle, M. Léonard, . . . J. Marsolais (2003). Les
passions de l'Âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 756-767.
Wagner, T. (2010). The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don’t Teach the New Survival Skills
Our Children Need—and What We Can Do about It. New York: Basic Books.
Wagner, T. (2012). Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World. New York:
Scribner.
Welch, M., S. Sheridan, A. Fuhriman, A. Hart, M. Connell & T. Stoddart (1992). Preparing Professionals for
Educational Partnerships: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Educational Psychology Papers and
Publications. Paper 24.
Page 72
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Exhibit A: Examples of Children’s Book Projects at Butler University
Title
Year
Published
Colleges Involved
Book Format &
Availability
Prescription to My Younger Self:
What I Learned after Pharmacy
School
2008
College of Pharmacy and Health
Sciences; Jordan College of the
Arts
Book (Amazon)
Who's Who in Healthcare: Global
Healthcare Systems
2010
College of Pharmacy and Health
Sciences; Jordan College of the
Arts
Not published
Pharmacy and Me 2012
College of Education; College of
Pharmacy and Health Sciences;
Jordan College of the Arts
e-book (Amazon);
Book (Butler Campus
Store*)
He Huffed and He Puffed But…A
Tale of a Wolf with Asthma
2013
College of Business; College of
Education; College of Pharmacy
and Health Sciences; Jordan
College of the Arts
e-book (Amazon);
Book (Butler Campus
Store*)
Max Greene & The Vaccine Team 2015
College of Business; College of
Education; College of Pharmacy
and Health Sciences; Jordan
College of the Arts
Book (Butler Campus
Store*
The Gifts of Indiana: A Tale of
Three Birthdays and One Grand
Adventure
2015
College of Business; College of
Education; College of Pharmacy
and Health Sciences; Jordan
College of the Arts
e-book (Amazon);
Book (Butler Campus
Store*)
* Butler Campus Store website:http://www.bkstr.com/butlerstore/home
Page 73
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
BUILDING A SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK FOR
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Astri Ghina, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung Institute
of Technology
Togar M. Simatupang, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung
Institute of Technology
Aurik Gustomo, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung
Institute of Technology
ABSTRACT
The importance of entrepreneurship education that positively impacts on the creation of
new ventures has been widely recognized. Despite numerous studies conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of entrepreneurship education within a university setting, the results are mostly
fragmented. Most studies are focused on the unsystematic approach to entrepreneurship
education that partially incorporates curricula, certain pedagogy, institutional support, and
assessment. This research thus proposes a systematic framework for entrepreneurship education
as guidelines for attaining effective learning and understanding priorities of key stakeholders
within a university to develop entrepreneurial graduates.
Key words: entrepreneurship; entrepreneurship education; effectiveness of entrepreneurship
education; effective learning; systematic framework; entrepreneurial graduates.
INTRODUCTION
The role of entrepreneurs has been respected as a great contributor to the economic
development of most nations (Ogbo, 2012). Nations develop faster if they have high quality,
creative, and innovative entrepreneurs that implement new ideas into practical action in every
business. Entrepreneur is an important issue in developing countries. For example, Thailand has
an established business ownership rate of 33.1%, Indonesia has 11.9%, Malaysia has 8.5%, and
Philippine has 6.2% (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2014).
Entrepreneurship Education (EE) has a vital role in guiding all learners to become more
entrepreneurial-minded (Hegarty, 2006). The implementation of EE within universities aims to
infuse the entrepreneurial culture and spirit into students, as well as creating new educated
entrepreneurs and new businesses (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013). In other words, the
expected outcome is to produce well-educated entrepreneurs that will create jobs. Nevertheless,
according to 46 case interviews at European Universities, there are several barriers facing EE:
EE depends on the efforts of a limited number of people; academic staff members lack the time
to engage in EE; educators’ inadequate competence; lack of funding to support EE; the
opposition of academic staff members to the introduction of EE; lack of support for EE from the
government; lack of good-quality material; lack of academic credibility; lack of recognition for
excellent EE; and lack of support from top management (Directorate-General for Enterprise and
Industry, 2008). Whereas, according to a survey result from 549 company founders in the United
State, 70% said that university education was important to support students in becoming
Page 74
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
successful entrepreneurs (Wadhwa et al. 2009).
Several studies of EE were conducted in order to support students in becoming successful
entrepreneurs. Most of the current researches tend to focus on the unsystematic approach to EE
that partially incorporates content (Co & Mitchell, 2006), mapping of EE within a higher
education institution (Solomon, 2007; Varblane & Mets, 2010), delivery method (Co & Mitchell,
2006; Heinonen & Poikkijoki, 2006; Tan & Ng, 2006), psychological aspects of students
(Ibrahim & Soufani, 2002; Gelderen, 2010) and the importance of students’ selection process
(Dhliwayo, 2008).
The objective of this research is to propose a systematic framework for EE by: (a)
creating a guideline for effective learning to develop entrepreneurial graduates; (b)
understanding the priorities for effective learning to develop entrepreneurial graduates; (c)
identifying areas of opportunity for learning improvement. The framework covers all
stakeholders such as students, staff members and the institution, to manage EE effectively (Piper,
1993). It needs to involve all important aspects that support the students to become
entrepreneurs, it support from staff members or from the institution (Herrmann et al., 2008).
The structure of this paper consists of introduction, literature review, building the
proposed conceptual model, discussion and conclusion. Introduction contains problem
statements that lead to the questions of this research. Literature review discusses the findings and
filling the gaps of this research area, which leads to propose a systematic framework of EE. This
is followed by an explanation of how to build this systematic framework. In the discussion
section, the main findings and scientific contributions of this research are explained. Finally, the
summary of this research is shown in the conclusion section.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature Review Method
The method adopted are for the purpose to provide a comprehensive and critical literature
review of empirical research in EE. A schematic representation of literature review method
adopted in this research is given in Figure 1. The issues of database selection, articles selection,
articles classification, and analysis of classified articles will be discussed under the literature
review schematic.
STEP 1
STEP 2
Selection of database:
Emerald and ProQuest
Articles selection:
Search for “Entrepreneurship Education”, “Learning of
Entrepreneurship Education” or “Evaluation of
Page 75
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Figure 1: Literature Review Method
Step 1: Selection of database
The articles were collected from Emerald and ProQuest.
Step 2: Article selection
Emerald Database
The exact phrases “Entrepreneurship Education” (5714 total results), “Learning of
Entrepreneurship Education” (3687 total results) and “Evaluation of Entrepreneurship
Education” (2572 total results) were searched for in journal-article title. From the first 100
results displayed through each keyword, articles were selected by their titles’ relevance to the
entrepreneurship education topic. The search was limited to the first 100 articles of each
keyword because it was already saturated.
The keyword “Entrepreneurship Education” resulted in 42 articles, the keyword
“Learning of Entrepreneurship Education” had 2 articles, and the keyword “Evaluation of
Entrepreneurship Education” brought up 7 articles. Next, the articles were selected by reading
the abstracts relating to the “business process” or “main activities” of EE, such as curriculum,
pedagogy, institutional support, assessment of EE, and theory of EE. The keyword
“Entrepreneurship Education” resulted in 28 articles, the keyword “Learning of Entrepreneurship
Education” had 1 article, and the keyword “Evaluation of Entrepreneurship Education” came up
with 5 articles. In total, all keywords resulted in 34 articles. The illustration of article selection
can be seen in Table 1.
Page 76
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
ProQuest Database
The exact phrases “Entrepreneurship Education”, “Learning of Entrepreneurship
Education” and “Evaluation of Entrepreneurship Education” were searched for in full text form
only through “Basic Search”, with a total of 4235 results. From the first 150 displayed results,
articles were selected by relevance of their titles to the EE topic. The result was 15 articles,
followed by selecting articles through reading abstracts related to the “business process” or
“main activities” of EE such as curriculum, pedagogy, institutional support, assessment of EE,
and theory of EE. The final result is 6 articles. The search was limited to the first 150 articles of
each keyword because of saturation. Illustration of article selection can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1
ARTICLE SELECTION FROM EMERALD AND PROQUEST
KEYWORDS
TOTAL
RESULTS
SELECTION-I
(By Title)
SELECTION-II
(By Abstract)
EMERALD
“Entrepreneurship Education” 5714
(Search limited to the
first 100 articles in
display)
42 28
“Learning of Entrepreneurship
Education”
3687
(Search limited to the
first 100 articles in
display)
2 1
“Evaluation of Entrepreneurship
Education”
2572
(Search limited to the
first 100 articles in
display)
7 5
Total 51 34
PROQUEST
“Entrepreneurship Education”,
“Learning of Entrepreneurship
Education” and “Evaluation of
Entrepreneurship Education”
4235
(Search limited to the
first 150 articles in
display)
15 6
Step 3: Classification of articles
In this step, the 40 selected articles were critically analyzed for classification. Initial
attempts to analyze this collection of articles stemmed from the goal of this research, which is an
attempt to develop a theory that explains entrepreneurial learning. There seems to be a number of
enduring educational issues to which these long-lasting concepts relate – those concerning
Learning input; Learning process; Learning assessment and evaluation, and Theory of
Entrepreneurship Education.
This framework of categorization is based on an analytical review of program evaluation
to judge its performance. Harvey (2002) noted that assessment may focus on input (such as
teaching staff, learning resources), process (such as teaching, learning, support services) or
outcomes (such as students’ academic standards of achievement or professional competence,
employment rates, student perception of their learning). Assessment evidence includes statistical
indicators, direct observation and direct evaluation of research output, student and graduate
views, employer views, student performance, self-assessment and other documentation,
discussion and interviews with teachers, students and managers, and perceptions of other
Page 77
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
agencies, such as professional bodies (Harvey, 2004). The characteristics of those classes can be
seen in Table 2.
Table 2
CHARACTERISTICS OF ARTICLE CLASSIFICATION
NO CLASSES CHARACTERISTICS
1 Learning Input The purpose of the program, target audience, the type of knowledge, skill
and attitude that students are expected to acquire.
2 Learning Process The process of learning in order to fulfill students’ cognitive needs,
affective needs, psychomotor needs and social needs through different
teaching methods such as discussion, guest speakers, case studies, lectures,
video presentations, computer simulations, role play, research projects, real
venture set-ups, internships, company visits, workshops, games and
competitions, feasibility studies, small business consulting, community
development, web-based assignments, entrepreneurship courses on the web,
offering information on the web, offering management and technical
assistance; other institutional facilities that support the learning process
such as lecturers, tutors, administrators, entrepreneurship budgets, roles in
the community and outreach activities.
3 Learning Assessment
and Evaluation
Indicators for impact assessment such as examination scores, start-ups by
graduates, business performance, attitude and intention to act, student or
alumni satisfaction; assessment methods such as tests/examinations,
making business plans, making research papers; the quality of the
program’s performance.
4 Framework of
Entrepreneurship
Education
Framework or concepts concerning entrepreneurship education; a set of
principles on which the practice of an entrepreneurial activity is based; a set
of principles regarding proper entrepreneurs behavior.
Step 4: Analysis of classified articles
This step identifies the similarities and differences of classified articles to find research
gaps of EE in empirical research, in addition to presenting significant findings from existing
literature. As stated in numerous studies, EE is becoming more and more important worldwide.
While research work in entrepreneurship is growing and gaining increased legitimacy within the
scientific community, on the other hand it lacks comprehensive elements of entrepreneurship
learning within university. Thus, it can be said that the research in entrepreneurship is still at an
exploratory stage. This is probably due to the fact that most studies focus on specific programs or
courses. Few studies present developed hypotheses and even fewer build on theories to elaborate
the hypotheses. There are four classifications of articles with six main attributes of related issues
in EE: coverage of background factors, curriculum, pedagogy, institutional supports, assessment,
and theories of entrepreneurial learning within universities. Most authors perform empirical or
non-empirical studies with main scopes of curriculum, pedagogy, institutional support, and
assessment.
The Literature Review Analysis
Entrepreneurship Education (EE) assumes extraordinary relevance within academic
programs all over the world (Alberti et al. 2004), and there seems to be widespread recognition
that entrepreneurship can contribute to economic development (Szirmai et al., 2011). The
objective of EE as presented by the European Union (2002) includes raising peoples’ awareness
of self-employment as a career opportunity, promoting the development of personal qualities that
Page 78
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
are relevant to entrepreneurship such as creativity, risk taking, and responsibility, and providing
the technical and business skills that are needed in order to start a venture. EE is defined as
purposeful intervention by an instructor in the life of a learner, to impart entrepreneurial qualities
and skills that enable the learner to survive in the business world (Isaacs et al., 2007). Alberti et
al. (2004) defined EE as the structured and formal transmission of entrepreneurial competencies;
it refers to the skills, concepts and mental awareness used by individuals during the process of
starting and developing their growth-oriented ventures.
A study conducted by Varblane & Mets (2010) focused on mapping EE in 774 higher
education institutions in 22 European transition countries. Analysis of information obtained from
web-based sources and a questionnaire identified 332 institutions in the region offering
entrepreneurship-oriented courses, modules or curricula. They explored entrepreneurship
courses, curricula of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship centers and teaching methods, with
results provided by descriptive statistics.
Similarly, a study conducted by Solomon (2007) explored mapping of course offering,
teaching methods, periodicals used in class, and technological support from institutions. This
study, the sixth survey conducted by the author since 1979, provided an analytical overview of
EE in the USA from 2004 to 2005 in 270 institutions. It also provided results by descriptive
statistics.
According to Co & Mitchell (2006), the most popular courses focused on
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management as an overview of the knowledge and skills
needed for the identification, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities. The findings showed
that teaching of entrepreneurship focused on traditional classroom delivery, such as lectures,
while entrepreneurship research in South Africa was considered less rigorous than other
management disciplines.
Another study from Indonesia measured the effectiveness of entrepreneurship courses
within Bengkulu University; but they were concerned with learning and teaching resources,
common teaching methods used, and student satisfaction toward learning outcomes by using
questionnaires (Abduh et al. 2012). It provided results by descriptive statistics.
The study conducted by Fayolle et al. (2006) was experimental research, but their focus
was only on evaluation of certain programs using entrepreneurial intention (Theory of Planned
Behavior) as a tool to measure the effectiveness of EE. It provided results with statistical tools to
examine the relationship between variables in the study.
The viewpoint conducted by Gelderen (2010) presented the importance of autonomy as
the guiding aim of EE. The primary aim was to allow students to work from their own inner
motivational resource base. The review conducted by Dhliwayo (2008) presented the importance
of student selection. They state that only students with the right entrepreneurial attitude would be
successfully processed or graduate into an entrepreneur. Another review conducted by Ibrahim &
Soufani (2002) presented the model of entrepreneurship training, in which they discussed the
importance of entrepreneurial traits, competences, and managerial skills to produce
entrepreneurial graduates. Henry et al. (2005) reviewed learning processes in different situations,
namely in the classroom and real world, and concluded the criteria of success within both
situations. An important review conducted by Mwasalwiba (2010) assessed the alignment
existing between generic objectives, target audience, teaching methods used, and impact
indicators used to measure effective learning in EE.
Salamzadeh et al. (2011) proposed a systematic framework for entrepreneurial university.
The framework includes special input (resources, culture, rules and regulations, structure,
Page 79
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
mission, entrepreneurial capabilities, and expectations of society, industry, government and
market.), processes (teaching, research, managerial processes, logistical processes,
commercialization, selection, funding and financial processes, networking, multilateral
interaction, and innovation, research and development activities), output (entrepreneur human
resources, effective research in line with market needs, innovations and inventions,
entrepreneurial networks, and entrepreneurial centers) and aimed to mobilize all of its resources,
abilities and capabilities in order to fulfill its Third Mission. They conducted a set of semi-
structured interviews with 25 experts in this domain.
It is very important to know the definition of systematic framework before beginning to
propose it in this research. According to the basic definition of systematic and framework from
several dictionaries, there are various explanations. The mapping definition of systematic and
framework can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3
THE MAPPING DEFINITION OF SYSTEMATIC AND FRAMEWORK
WORD DEFINITION REFERENCES
Systematic
Characterized by, based on, or constituting a
system: systematic thought.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, 2011)
Working or done in a step-by-step manner;
methodical: a systematic worker; a systematic
approach.
Characterized by the use of order and
planning; methodical: a systematic
administrator.
(Collins English Dictionary - Complete
& Unabridged, 2003)
Having, showing, or involving method, plan or
an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of
facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a
particular field of knowledge or thought
(Systematic-1, n.d.)
Relating to, or concerned with classification;
neat, orderly, organized, regular, methodical,
systematized
(Systematic-2, n.d.)
Framework
The basic structure of something; a set of ideas
or facts that provide support for something
(Framework, n.d.)
A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and
practices that constitutes a way of viewing
reality.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, 2011)
A structure or frame supporting or containing
something
(Collins English Dictionary - Complete
& Unabridged, 2012)
Based on the basic definition of systematic and framework from dictionaries, the
definition of Systematic Framework can then be formulated. A systematic framework is a well-
organized basic structure of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way
of viewing reality, showing a comprehensive (complete and includes all aspects that are
important) assemblage of facts or principles in a particular field of knowledge.
The project partners organized by Herrmann et al. (2008) addressed effective learning
and institutional support for EE to develop entrepreneurial graduates within a university context.
They proposed a framework for entrepreneurship education strategy based on a set of guiding
principles informed by international expert panel members. Their framework can be categorized
as systematic framework because it is well-organized and includes all aspects of concepts,
values, and best practices that are important for developing entrepreneurial graduates within a
Page 80
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
university. This framework can be used as a starting guideline for effective learning to develop
entrepreneurial graduates. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the structured responsibility
regarding the key stakeholders within a university (students, staff, and institution) relate to all
important aspects of concepts, values, and best practices based on international expert panel
members. It also does not show the pattern of interaction among its key stakeholders and
assurances of learning in the implemented framework. The framework contains the need for an
enabling institutional environment, the engagement of key stakeholders within and outside the
institution, the development of entrepreneurial pedagogic approaches in teaching, and learning
and support practices.
The need for enabling institutional environments means that universities can provide the
right environment that will inspire and motivate individuals to find opportunities, acquire
resources, and take action in a variety of contexts that have relevance to their lives and
aspirations. In such environments, there should be clarity about entrepreneurial outcomes, the
alignment between entrepreneurial outcomes and appropriate ways of learning, and the kind of
learning that needs to take place. The engagement of key stakeholders means that
entrepreneurship does not take place in isolation from its broader environment, which means that
continuous learning is sustained through relationships with stakeholders and others. Indeed,
successful entrepreneurship is more likely to happen in a situation where the stakeholders
provide learning opportunities and facilitate the creation and exchange of tacit knowledge.
Development of entrepreneurial pedagogic approaches in teaching, learning and support
practices means that the delivery of the desired entrepreneurial outcomes challenges institutions
and educators to review and reflect on what needs to be taught and learnt and how the
appropriate learning environments and approaches can be created. Such practices should be
clearly aligned with the existing goals, outcomes, and assessment processes (Herrmann et al.,
2008).
According to the articles for this literature review, studies on entrepreneurship education
can be analyzed by an implementation framework from Herrmann et al. (2008) with which to
discover the research gap from entrepreneurship education literature. The results of analysis that
uses the set of guiding principles from Herrmann et al. (2008) can be seen in Table 4.
Table 4
MAPPING OF ARTICLES FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION FRAMEWORK
Author/Year
Guiding Principles for Entrepreneurship Education Strategy
Institutional
environment
The engagement of key
stakeholders within and
outside the institution
Development of entrepreneurial
pedagogic approaches in teaching,
learning and support practices
Ibrahim and Soufani
(2002)
- - ?
Co and Mitchell
(2006)
? - ?
Tan and Ng (2006) - - ?
Solomon (2007) ? - ?
Dhliwayo (2008) ? - -
Gelderen (2010) - - ?
Mwasalwiba (2010) ? - ?
Varblane and Mets
(2010)
? - ?
Salamzadeh (2011) ? ? ?
Page 81
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
According to the above mapping, little attention has been dedicated to all elements of
learning that are important to develop entrepreneurial graduates within a university context. Most
studies focused on the institutional environment (curriculum, institutional supports,
entrepreneurial traits, partial assessment) and the development of entrepreneurial pedagogic
approaches in teaching, learning and support practices. There are limited studies that focused on
a systematic framework of entrepreneurship education.
The study conducted by Salamzadeh et al. (2011) proposed a systematic framework for
an entrepreneurial university using the Input-Process-Output-Outcome (IPOO) Model. The
framework covers all elements of learning that are important for an entrepreneurial university.
According to the IPOO model, there are the main valuable aspects of input, process, output, and
outcome, but there is unclear structured responsibility regarding the key stakeholders within the
university (students, staff, institution) related to those main valuable aspects. The IPOO model
does not show the pattern of interaction among its key stakeholders and the assurance of
learning. Meanwhile, Ropke (1998 as cited in Salamzadeh, 2011) considers the entrepreneurial
university as an Entrepreneur Organization that views three items: first, a university as an
organization adopts an entrepreneurial management style (institution); second, its members act
entrepreneurially (student and staff); and third, it follows an entrepreneurial pattern to interact
with its environment (student, staff, and institution).
A study conducted by Piper (1993) applied a general framework of management in
education within a university context. The framework involves all key stakeholders that support
management in education, such as students, staff members, and institution. Each of those key
stakeholders has important responsibilities, namely ability, opportunity, and incentive. The
framework by Piper (1993) meets all sets of guiding principles informed by Herrmann et al.
(2008): it is well-organized, with clearly-structured responsibility regarding the key stakeholders
within the university (students, staff, and institution) relating to all aspects of concepts, values,
and best practices that are important for developing entrepreneurial graduates. It also has clear
patterns of interaction among its key stakeholders within the university.
According to the systematic framework proposed from literature, the systematic
framework for EE can be characterized by several components in the context of entrepreneurship
education:
(a) learning goals of EE: what the program is trying to do and for whom
(b) comprehensive
(c) well-organized
(d) allocation of resources: clearly-structured responsibility of key stakeholders, clear patterns of
interaction among its key stakeholders
(e) assurance of learning, which are concerns expressed since the last evaluation, including but
not limited to the target population, objectives, resources and personnel responsibilities
The analysis of framework proposed by literature based on the systematic framework’s
characteristics can be seen in Table 5.
Table 5
AN ANALYSIS OF PREVIOUSLY- PROPOSED SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK
RESEARCH
No Characteristics Systematic Framework Proposed by Previous Researches
Page 82
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Piper
(1993)
Herrmann et al.
(2008)
Salamzadeh et al.
(2011)
(a) Context of entrepreneurship
education
x ? x
(b) Comprehensive ? ? ?
(c) Well-organized ? ? ?
(d) Allocated resources ? x x
(e) Assurance of Learning x x x
Based on the above analysis, the framework proposed by Piper (1993) can be used as a
systematic guideline for effective learning within the university. The main attributes for
components in the EE context are equipped from the framework proposed by Herrmann et al.
(2008). Since all above-mentioned systematic frameworks do not have the Assurance of
Learning component, a systematic framework is thus proposed in this research for a better
understanding that fills out the research gap from literature.
According to the research gap from literature, the following research questions are
formulated:
RQ-1: What is the systematic framework of entrepreneurship education for effective learning
within a university context?
RQ-2: How is the systematic framework of entrepreneurship education for effective learning
within a university context?
The objective of this research is to build a systematic framework for entrepreneurship education
within a university context.
BUILDING THE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Conceptual framework possesses ontological, epistemological, and methodological
assumptions, and each concept within a conceptual framework plays an ontological or
epistemological role. The ontological assumptions relate to knowledge of the way things are, the
nature of reality, real existence, and real action. The epistemological assumptions relate to how
things really are and how things really work in an assumed reality. The methodological
assumptions relate to the process of building the conceptual framework and assessing what it can
tell us about the real world (Jabareen, 2009). Based on the title of Building a systematic
framework for entrepreneurship education, the meaning of entrepreneurial graduate will be
discussed in Phase 1 as the ontological assumptions; the question of how do we know who
entrepreneurial graduates really are? will be discussed in the Phase 2 as the epistemological
assumptions; and the question of how do we build the entrepreneurial graduates within a
university context? will be discussed in Phase 3 as the methodological assumptions. The
procedures to build a conceptual framework are as follows:
Phase 1: Mapping definition of entrepreneurial graduate (ontological assumptions).
Ontology is defined as the study of being (Crotty, 2003). It is concerned with what kind
of world we are investigating, with the nature of existence, with the structure of reality as such.
Guba & Lincolin (1989 as cited in Adam, 2014) state that the ontological assumptions are those
that respond to the question of what is there that can be known? or what is the nature of reality?
Blaikie (2000 as cited in Adam, 2014) states that ontology refers to claims and
assumptions that are made about the nature of social reality, claims about what exists, what it
Page 83
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
looks like, what units make it up and how these units interact with each other. The reality of what
exists is ontology. It is about asking about what constitutes reality and how we understand its
existence. Ontology is the science or the analysis of what is and how it is (Foerster, 1996 as cited
in Adam, 2014). Ontology is all about the nature of the world around us. Particularly, it is about
the small part of reality which the researcher chooses to address.
The topic of this research concerns a phenomenon which is about the building of a
systematic framework for EE to develop entrepreneurial graduates. This phenomenon of
entrepreneurial graduates is important to investigate because some countries have a low number
of established businesses that can contribute significantly to economic development. According
to literature, the way to improve well-established business is through entrepreneurship education.
Entrepreneurship education has a vital role in guiding all students to become more
entrepreneurial-minded (entrepreneurial graduates). The entrepreneurial-minded leads the
students to become successful entrepreneurs.
Based on the topic of this research, the ontological questions are what is the form and
nature of reality in the entrepreneurial graduates? and how can we understand its existence of
entrepreneurial graduates? The answer to these questions, the nature of reality for the
entrepreneurial graduate is external to the researcher and represented by objects in space. The
reality of the entrepreneurial graduate can be captured by our senses and predicted.
The nature of reality is that the role of entrepreneurs has been respected as a great
contributor to economic development in most nations. Nations will develop faster if they have
high quality, creative, and innovative entrepreneurs that implement new ideas into practical
action in every business. This means the reality of successful entrepreneurs is assumed to be the
most important aspect in economic development. But in reality, some countries have a low
number of established business ownerships, due to a lack of education. In other words, there is a
lack of educated entrepreneurs that could be sustained in its highly competitive environment. The
reality of low-educated entrepreneurs leads universities to participate through creating
entrepreneurship education programs that are expected to create more entrepreneurial-minded
students (entrepreneurial graduates). In turn, the entrepreneurial graduates lead to the creation of
more successful entrepreneurs. An entrepreneurial graduate is objectively interpreted and
constantly emerges through a series of entrepreneurial processes (creative processes) within
education boundaries. This ontological position directly influences the view of what knowledge
about entrepreneurial graduate means.
The next task is to map the spectrum of disciplinary literature regarding the phenomenon
of entrepreneurial graduate. This process includes identifying text types and other sources of
data. The word entrepreneurial graduate can be found in the discipline of education within the
entrepreneurship context. Thus, the headword of Entrepreneurial and Graduate are defined based
on dictionaries. The mapping of the definition can be seen in Table 6.
Table 6
MAPPING OF THE DEFINITION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL GRADUATE (ONTOLOGICAL
ASSUMPTIONS)
WORD DEFINITION REFERENCES
Entrepreneu An adjective word relating to a person who (American Heritage Dictionary of the
Page 84
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 6
MAPPING OF THE DEFINITION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL GRADUATE (ONTOLOGICAL
ASSUMPTIONS)
WORD DEFINITION REFERENCES
rial organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a
business venture.
English Language, 2011)
An adjective word relating to an entrepreneur;
entrepreneurial risks
(WordNet 3.0, Farlex Clipart Collection,
2012)
An adjective word; willing to take risks in
order to make a profit
(WordNet 3.0, Farlex Clipart Collection,
2012)
An adjective word; characterized by the taking
of financial risks in the hope of profit;
enterprising: an entrepreneurial culture,
entrepreneurial spirit thrives on meeting the
next challenge
(Entrepreneurial, n.d.)
Graduate
A person who has received a degree from a
university or college.
(Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and
Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and
Allied Health, 2003)
A person who has been awarded a first degree
from a university or college; a student who has
completed a course of studies at a high school
and received a diploma
(Collins English Dictionary, 2003)
A person who has received a degree or
diploma on completing a course of study at a
university, college, or school; a student who
holds a bachelor's or first professional degree
and is studying for an advanced degree.
(Random House Kernerman Webster's
College Dictionary, 2010)
A holder of an academic degree or diploma; a
person who has successfully completed a
course of study or training, especially a person
who has been awarded an undergraduate or
first academic degree.
(Graduate-1, n.d).
Receive an academic degree upon completion
of one's studies
(Graduate-2, n.d).
A person who has successfully completed a
course of study or training, especially a person
who has been awarded an undergraduate or
first academic degree.
(Graduate-3, n.d).
According to the definitions from dictionaries, Entrepreneurial Graduate is a person who
has successfully completed a study that has the spirit or mindset, behavior, attitude, and skills of
an entrepreneur, such as opportunity-seeking, initiative-taking, ownership of development,
commitment to see things through, personal locus of control (autonomy), intuitive decision-
making with limited information, networking capacity, strategic thinking, negotiation capacity,
selling/persuasive capacity, achievement orientation, and the willingness to take risk in order to
make a profit, and addresses economic and social needs.
Phase 2: Identifying and naming concepts (epistemological assumptions)
The aim in this phase is to read and reread the selected data and discover concepts. This
phase answers the question of how do we know what entrepreneurial graduates really are?
Generally, this phase allows concepts to emerge from the literature.
Page 85
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Epistemology is a way of understanding and explaining how we know what we know.
Epistemology is also concerned with providing a philosophical grounding for deciding what
kinds of knowledge are possible and how we can ensure that they are both adequate and
legitimate (Crotty, 2003).
According to Blaikie (2000 as cited Adam, 2014) epistemology is the possible ways of
gaining knowledge of social reality, whatever it is understood to be. Epistemology refers to the
theory of knowledge, particularly how we acquire knowledge. It is best understood as the science
to analyze the way of human beings comprehend knowledge about what is perceived to exist
(Niehaves, 2005 as cited in Adam, 2014). Epistemological assumptions about a research issue
under investigation concern the criteria by which valid knowledge about that phenomenon may
be constructed (Chua, 1986 as cited in Adam, 2014). It is the theory about reality and is
concerned with how we come to know what we know. There is a connection between a theory of
reality (epistemology) and reality itself (ontology) (Adam, 2014).
For the epistemological question of how do we know what entrepreneurial graduates
really are? The answer is constrained by the answer to the ontological question above. This
means that any relationship cannot be assumed. The knowledge of the entrepreneurial graduate is
objective and generated deductively from theory of entrepreneurship education.
The knowledge and concept of the entrepreneurial graduate are created in interaction
between people and their environment (learning process) within education boundaries. With this
view, knowledge of the entrepreneurial graduate is seen as objective constructs. This
epistemological assumptions directly influence how the knowledge of Entrepreneurial Graduate
is produced.
An important factor that cannot be ignored from the entrepreneurial graduate is
entrepreneurial competency; Obschonka et al. (2011) found that early entrepreneurial
competence in adolescence had a positive effect on making progress in the venture creation
process. Thus, the entrepreneurial graduate is characterized by having entrepreneurial
competence.
Competence encompasses knowledge, skills and abilities (Argyris, 1993 as cited in
Markowska, 2011). Knowledge is defined as understanding acquired through education and
experience; skills are defined as experientially-acquired procedural knowledge, and ability is the
aptitude to use knowledge and skills. In an entrepreneurship context, the knowledge, skills and
abilities relate to building the capacity to successfully create new means-ends frameworks
(Sarasvathy, 2001). Entrepreneurial competencies that are commonly inherent in entrepreneurs
are identifying and evaluating business opportunities, decision-making, networking, identifying
and solving problems, oral communication abilities, and innovative thinking (Izquierdo et al.
2005).
Phase 3: Constructing the methodological assumptions of the entrepreneurial graduate.
Methodology is the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and
use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of the methods to the desired outcomes
(Crotty, 2003). The methodological aspect of the theory of knowledge (epistemology) explains
how a researcher forms perceptions about a phenomenon being investigated. The methodology
refers to the modes of acquiring knowledge about the phenomena. One way of achieving this is
through induction. Induction is understood as the extension from individual cases to universal
cases. An inductive conclusion means the transfer from (observed, empirical) individual cases to
a universal law. On the other hand, knowledge can be acquired through a deductive method.
Page 86
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Deduction is the derivation of a statement from other statements with the help of logical
conclusions. It is the derivation of the individual from the universal (Becker & Niehaves, 2007 as
cited in Adam, 2014).
The question under the methodological assumptions is of how a researcher forms
perceptions about the phenomenon of the entrepreneurial graduate? The transactional nature of
this research topic is acquired through the deductive method. It is important to study the previous
literature regarding how to develop entrepreneurial graduates, so that it can be synthesized in
building a systematic framework. To answer the methodological question of how the researcher
will go about finding whatever (s)he believes can be known is through other statements with the
help of logical conclusions. The methodological assumptions of how to develop entrepreneurial
graduate is a longitudinal process of social interaction within education boundaries and it should
have consequences for the theoretical framework of entrepreneurship education and use of theory
in the entrepreneurship education field.
Developing entrepreneurial graduates is therefore essential to our future success
(Herrmann et al. 2008). It means that the entrepreneurial graduate leads to becoming a successful
entrepreneur as a job creator. Entrepreneurial competencies as the important factors embedded
within the entrepreneurial graduate will be discussed in this phase. To answer the question of
how do we build that entrepreneurial graduate within a university context, is through discussion
of how to build the entrepreneurial competencies. This assumption is based on characterizing the
entrepreneurial graduate as having entrepreneurial competencies. This phase describes the
phenomena from the previous literatures.
The importance of entrepreneurial competence development to entrepreneurial action is
well-established. Research suggests that competence reflects the ability to effectively interact
with the environment (Skinner, 1995). Johannisson (1991) recognizes that entrepreneurial
competence, except for knowledge (know-what) and skills (know-how), also requires the
development of appropriate attitudes and motives (know-why), social skills (know-who) and
insights (know-when). The know-when competence in particular gains value in dynamic
environments.
Entrepreneurial competence development can be studied from the input side (triggers to
competence), process (task or behavior leading to competence), or consequences (outcomes of
achieving standards of competence). There is also emerging research on triggers of competence
development, specifically the process and the consequences of it. Previous research of
entrepreneurial competence development can be seen in Table 7 (Markowska, 2011).
Page 87
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 7
PREVIOUS RESEARCHES ON ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORS TRIGGERS PROCESS CONSEQUENCES
Chandler and Jansen
(1992)
Roles (not available) Venture success
(growth and
profitability)
Chandler and Hanks
(1994)
Roles
Self-efficacy
(not available) Venture performance
Bird (1995) Motive/trait
Self-concept
Social role
Skills
Entrepreneurial
Learning
Venture success
Schmitt-Rodermund
(2004)
Contextual input (including
role models)
Beliefs (self-concept, self-
efficacy)
Achievement orientation
(not available) Entrepreneurial
success
Man (2005) Self-image/social role
Motive
Trait
Entrepreneurial
Learning
(not available)
Man (2006) (not available) Entrepreneurial
Learning
Entrepreneurial
success
Markowski (2011) Beliefs, Goals, Contextual
Embeddedness
Entrepreneurial
Learning
Potential domain
expertise,
entrepreneurial
identity
As the consequence, increasing levels of competence do not automatically result in expertise.
Bird (1995) makes an important distinction between competence as contributing to excellence in
performance and competence as a minimum standard or a baseline. The competencies necessary
to launch a venture or implement a business idea may be conceived as baseline competence and
highly-effective entrepreneurs (excellent competence) are those that go beyond launch into
organizational survival and growth.
Therefore, according to recent research for the framework focus on EE, this phase
discusses factors related to entrepreneurial competence within the educational institution setting,
encompassing triggers, process, and consequence. The important aspect in EE is setting goals,
which assumes the role of the trigger in creating the appropriate process to develop
entrepreneurial competence. Goals are an inherent aspect of intentional goal-directed behavior.
The extant literature on goals affirms that they can be used by individuals as a self-management
technique to arrive at aspired outcomes (Bandura, 1977). The goals of EE should be connected to
learning (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008). Two general orientations have been distinguished: learning
and performance orientation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988 in Markowska, 2011).
Learning orientation allows individuals to treat failures as challenges and learn from
them, while performance orientation is beneficial in situations when results are expected.
Individuals with learning orientation search for challenges and learning opportunities and are not
afraid of experimenting and trying new things, because their focus is on attaining more
competence and skills (Wood & Bandura, 1989). On the other hand, individuals who set
performance goals are more inclined to refrain from trying new, often-challenging tasks because
they want to remain within their perception of intelligence. They see new challenges as
threatening their identity and their perception of their capability (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Thus,
Page 88
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
to see entrepreneurs grow and develop their entrepreneurial competencies requires that they have
a learning approach that sees failures and obstacles as challenges and opportunities for learning.
Learning goals are better when the task at hand is more complex, as is usually the case in
entrepreneurship or when the outcomes are unknowable (Noel & Latham, 2006).
The process of competence development is defined as a change in what an entrepreneur is
capable of doing, and it refers to a change in the pattern of action coming from the use of
available means (Markowska, 2011). Some researchers argue that the different modes of
knowledge acquisition can produce different outcomes as they build upon different experiences.
Thus, competence development reflects an ability to acquire and use new means (i.e.
knowledge). The ability to acquire new knowledge is referred to as learning (Corbett, 2007).
Subsequently, learning is seen as a skill that underlies capability development. Thus,
understanding how entrepreneurial competence develops requires an understanding of
entrepreneurial learning (Markowska, 2011).
The consensus among scholars is that to become entrepreneurial is through direct
experience, i.e. learning-by-doing or direct observation (Lackeus, 2013). Hence, entrepreneurial
learning is the only way to promote entrepreneurial graduates that have entrepreneurial
competencies. The extant literature considers entrepreneurial learning as the main vehicle for
competence development (Markowska, 2011). Entrepreneurial learning covers a wide variety of
audiences, objectives, contents and pedagogical methods. In this context, the methodological
assumptions relate to the educational level that designs an educational program around five
specific interrelated questions, which should be addressed in the following order (Fayolle et al.
2006):
(a) Why (objectives, goals)?
(b) For whom (targets, audiences)?
(c) For which results (evaluations, assessments)?
(d) What (contents, theories)?
(e) How (methods, pedagogies)?
Phase 4: Integrating concept
The aim in this phase is to integrate the process in phases 1, 2 and 3; and to group
together the concept that emerges from literatures. This phase describes the ontological,
epistemological and methodological assumptions related to entrepreneurial graduate. The
framework is illustrated in Figure 2:
Page 89
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Figure 2: The Framework of Entrepreneurial Graduate
EPISTEMOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS:
How do we know what the entrepreneurial graduates really are?
Objective and generate deductively from theory: The knowledge and
concept of entrepreneurial graduate are created in interaction between
people and their interpreted environment within education boundaries.
ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS:
What is the form and nature of reality in the entrepreneurial graduates?
How can we understand the existence of entrepreneurial graduates?
The importance of successful entrepreneurs leads to development of
entrepreneurial graduates. Entrepreneurial Graduate is objectively
interpreted and it is constantly emerge through a series of
entrepreneurial processes (creative process) within education
boundaries.
METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS:
How does a researcher form perceptions about the phenomenon of
entrepreneurial graduate?
Deductive method: Developing the entrepreneurial graduate is a
longitudinal process of social interaction within education boundaries
and should have consequences for the theoretical framework of
entrepreneurship education and use of theory in the entrepreneurship
education field.
Page 90
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Phase 5: Synthesis and making sense of it all.
The aim in this phase is to synthesize concepts into a theoretical framework. This process
is iterative and includes repetitive synthesis until the general theoretical framework makes sense.
This phase is explained through an in-depth discussion of how to build entrepreneurial graduates
in educational level.
The EE has goals to develop entrepreneurial graduates who achieve standards of
competencies, whether as professionals or entrepreneurs. The institutional goals can be placed on
the input side as a trigger to develop the graduates’ competencies. In order to support their goals,
the university creates course content and establishes it into curricula related to its goals and
target audiences, and it needs an appropriate learning approach to deliver it effectively. To
achieve goals effectively, there are three key actors involved within a university setting, namely
students, staff, and institution. They have their own attributes in the education process, such as
the ability, opportunity and incentive aspects (Piper, 1993). This framework is used as a
guideline for effective learning within a university. The framework for EE can be seen in Figure
3.
Figure 3: The Framework of Effective Learning for Entrepreneurship Education
STUDENTS
What makes learning
effective?
HAVE ABILITY TO LEARN:
Recruitment and selection of
students
HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO
LEARN:
Curriculum;
Institutional support
HAVE INCENTIVE TO LEARN:
Grants;
Grading schema (weighting)
STAFF
What makes teaching
effective?
IMPROVING ABILITY TO
LEARN:
Learning evaluation (Direct
Assessment)
IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY
TO LEARN:
Teaching methods;
Lecturer roles
IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO
LEARN:
Rewards within and outside
class;
Participation
INSTITUTION
What makes a teaching
organization effective?
IMPROVING ABILITY TO
TEACH:
Recruitment and selection of
lecturer; Training; Performance
appraisal
IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY
TO TEACH:
Workload
Knowledge sharing;
Freedom in teaching;
Learning Material Support;
Fund Allocation
IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO
TEACH:
Pay and incentive schema;
Life and health insurance;
Rewards for innovative
teaching
ASSURANCE OF LEARNING
? Desirable qualities of the graduates must be stated explicitly.
? Use an outcome-based approach to gain the key area of learning.
? Systematically gather evidence from measurement
? Analyze and interpret evidence to ensure goals are met and to get continuous
improvement.
Page 91
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Assurance of learning refers to the process of maintaining standards of learning reliably
and consistently by applying criteria of success in a program (Mishra, 2007). The approach to
achieve students’ learning outcome is by using a continuous improvement cycle, akin to a Plan-
Do-Check-Action cycle. The first loop depicts students’ competences after completing the
program and is guided by the vision, mission and values of the institution, which in turn informs
the learning goals and learning objectives of the program. The second loop depicts the
opportunities provided by institution and is considered through curriculum design, mapping to
course-learning objectives, and subsequent delivery of courses that provide students
opportunities to learn the knowledge, skills and values laid out in program-learning goals,
program-learning objectives, and course-learning objectives. The third loop depicts assessment
to see whether the students have learnt the desired learning objectives, collects evidence and
checks whether there are gaps. The final loop involves analyzing and interpreting evidence and
also involves adjustments to program elements or teaching methods in order to improve student
learning outcomes where most needed (Mabin & Marshall, 2011).
Phase 6: Resynthesize the concept and build the entrepreneurial learning framework
The challenge after proposing the framework of effective learning for EE is to adapt it in
a systematic framework with logical sense. This phase is a resynthesize from several concepts
and is reintegrated to build the systematic framework of EE in order developing entrepreneurial
graduates. A systematic framework for entrepreneurship education can be seen in Figure 4.
Page 92
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEUR
HAVE EXCELLENT
ENTREPRENEURIAL
COMPETENCE
? (Hytti & Kuopusjarvi, 2004):
Offering quality jobs
? Gorgievski et al. (2011):
Profitability; Growth,
Innovation; Giving back to
society; Personal
satisfaction,;Satisfied
stakeholders; Good balance
between work and private life,
Public recognition, Usefulness
ENTREPRENEURIAL GRADUATE
HAVE BASELINE ENTREPRENEURIAL
COMPETENCE:
Identifying and evaluating business
opportunities; Identifying and solving
problems; Decision making; Networking,
Oral communication abilities; Innovative
thinking (Izquierdo et al., 2005)
STAFF
IMPROVING ABILITY TO LEARN
Learning evaluation (Direct assessment)
IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN
Teaching methods
Lecturer’s role
IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO LEARN
Rewards within and outside class
Participation / peer review
INSTITUTION
IMPROVING ABILITY TO TEACH
Recruitment and selection, Training,
Performance appraisal
IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY TO TEACH
Workload, Knowledge sharing, Freedom in
teaching, Learning material support, Fund
allocation
IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO TEACH
Pay and incentive schema, Life and health
insurance, Rewards for innovative teaching
STUDENT
HAVE ABILITY TO LEARN
Recruitment and selection
HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO
LEARN
Curriculum
Institutional support
HAVE INCENTIVE TO LEARN
Grants
Grading schema
A
S
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
O
F
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
Figure 4: A Systematic Framework for Entrepreneurship Education to Develop Entrepreneurial Graduates
The entrepreneurial graduates who have baseline entrepreneurial competence are capable
of launching new ventures. The graduates who have excellent entrepreneurial competence after
Page 93
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
completing the entrepreneurial learning within the university will sustain and grow beyond
launch to becoming successful entrepreneurs. The criteria of successful entrepreneur include
capability to offer quality jobs (Hytti & Kuopusjarvi, 2004); high profitability; significant
business growth; unique business innovation; business contribution to society; personal
satisfaction for the entrepreneur; stakeholders’ satisfaction with the entrepreneur; the
entrepreneur has a good balance between work and private life; the business has good public
recognition; and the product or service has valuable usefulness for consumers (Gorgievski et al.
2011).
DISCUSSION
The main finding from this conceptual research is the conceptual model analysis of a
systematic framework for EE to develop entrepreneurial graduates. This framework covers all
key actors within the university; each actor has its own role to create an effective learning
process. The scientific contribution from this research is the use of this proposed systematic
framework for several goals: (a) as a guideline for effective learning to develop entrepreneurial
graduates; (b) to understand the priorities for effective learning to develop entrepreneurial
graduates; (c) to help university management to understand the key stakeholders’ needs to
develop entrepreneurial graduates; (d) to identify areas of opportunity for learning improvement.
There are three conditions that are necessary for students to perform satisfactorily: they
must have the ability to learn in order to undertake their studies involved (recruitment and
selection); they must have the opportunity to learn to conduct the studies satisfactorily
(curriculum, institutional support); and they must have incentives to learn in order to encourage
their willingness to study (grants, grading schema). The important aspects for staff members to
teach effectively are that they can improve their students’ ability to learn (learning evaluation);
their students’ opportunity to learn in order to conduct their studies satisfactorily (teaching
method, lecturer role); and their students’ incentive to learn in order to encourage their
willingness to study (rewards, participation). The environment is necessary for an educational
institution to make a teaching organization effective. It needs to improve the ability to teach its
staff members (recruitment and selection, training and development, performance appraisal, pay
schema); improve opportunities to teach its staff members to perform their work satisfactorily
(workload, knowledge sharing, freedom in teaching, learning material support, fund allocation);
and improve incentives so that its staff members are encouraged to do their work satisfactorily
(incentive schema, life and health insurance, rewards for innovative teaching).
Those three conditions are necessary as requirements for effective learning. The
university management can gain a better understanding of the three key stakeholders’ needs, so
they can make priorities to develop entrepreneurial graduates. Based on all aspects of learning
proposed, this systematic framework can be used to identify the areas of opportunity for learning
improvement within the university context.
The previous studies were limited to conducting evaluation of EE within an institution as
the whole system. The findings in the previous studies were partial and tended to focus on
students and institutions only. There are several studies which focused on input such as the
importance of student selection (Dhliwayo, 2008); the importance of entrepreneurial traits,
competence, and managerial skills to promote successful entrepreneurs (Ibrahim & Soufani,
2002); and the importance of internal motivation of the students (Gelderen, 2010). Most studies
were concerned with mapping entrepreneurship education. The mapping included popular
courses, existing teaching focus, curriculum of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship centers,
Page 94
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
teaching methods, periodicals used in the classroom, and technological support from an
institution (Co & Mitchell, 2006; Solomon, 2007; Varblane & Mets, 2010). Two other similar
studies were also conducted, with one focusing on teaching methods (Tan & Ng, 2006) and the
other focusing on learning processes in both the classroom and real world (Henry et al. 2005).
An experimental study on entrepreneurial education within the university level based on
the entrepreneurial-directed approach was conducted by Heinonen & Poikkijoki (2006). They
used a qualitative method combined with an observation to evaluate the approach feasibility and
applicability to entrepreneurial education. They also focused their study on discovering,
evaluating, and exploiting the core role of learning opportunities. There were other similar
studies, but they only focused on the impact of entrepreneurial education on students, such as
participant satisfaction (Abduh et al. 2012; Millman et al. 2008) and entrepreneurial intention
(Fayolle, 2006). Few previous studies researched or explored the support from institutions in
enhancing staff members’ competence. Therefore, this research tries to offer a fully-systematic
approach in exploring existing learning, with regards to opportunities, abilities and incentives in
learning or teaching. This systematic framework is expected to review the role of students, staff
members and the institution in creating satisfactory learning.
CONCLUSIONS
There are several important findings from this conceptual research. The first aspect is a
systematic framework as a guideline for effective learning to develop entrepreneurial graduates.
The second aspect is that the institution has to manage three key stakeholders to achieve learning
goals, namely students, staff, and the institution itself. The third aspect is the assurance of
learning to guarantee the students’ learning effectiveness that also has to be well-managed by the
institution. Previous studies mostly discussed learning and institutional supports partially. They
mostly focused their research on the opportunity to learn, such as programs, teaching methods,
and facility support. Few explored staff members’ competence and ways to improve the EE. This
research offers a fully-systematic approach in exploring existing learning, with regards to
opportunities, abilities and incentives for students and staff. This systematic framework is
expected to review the roles of the students, staff members and the institution in creating
satisfactory learning.
The scientific contribution of this research is a building process of proposed systematic
framework and the usage of a concept structure that is arranged according to a system that
functions as a guideline to view reality. It can be used to describe successful learning practices in
managing EE within a university. This approach is expected to enable the exploration of all
aspects, instead of only some aspects, which are necessary for effective learning to occur within
an institution.
It is expected that this conceptual research provides a guideline for practitioners such as
policy-makers, lecturers, researchers, and curriculum developers for the development of a
systematic framework for EE that is useful to develop entrepreneurial graduates, thus creating
more jobs and reducing open unemployment. In addition, this research will support clarity for the
qualification level of EE in order to promote more entrepreneurial graduates. The future research
suggested is conduct-mapping and evaluation to gain a better understanding of the effectiveness
of learning and institutional support. This mapping should be applied in several business schools
in order to gain insight regarding the best learning practices. Cross-case analysis can be
conducted to discover patterns that can be used to build a learning theory of entrepreneurship
education in developing successful entrepreneurs.
Page 95
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
REFERENCES
Abduh, M., Maritz, A., & Rushworth, S. (2012). An evaluation of entrepreneurship education in Indonesia: a case
study of Bengkulu University. The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 4 (4), 42-43.
Adam, I. O. (2014). The ontological, epistemological and methodological debates in information systems research:
a partial review. Unpublished essays from Dissertation. University for Development Studies, School of
Business and Law, University of Ghana. Retrieved March 8, 2015, fromhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2411620.
Alberti, F., Sciascia, S., & Poli, A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: notes on an ongoing debate. 14th Annual
IntEnt Conference. Italy: University of Napoli Federico II.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (Fifth Edition). (2011). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company. Retrieved March 8, 2015, fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Eaglewoods Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bird, B. (1995). Towards a theory of entrepreeurial competency. Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and
growth, 2, 51-72. JAI Press Inc.
Co, M. J., & Mitchell, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship education in South Africa: a nationwide survey. Journal
of Education + Training, 48 (5), 357-358.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, (2003). Harper Collins Publishers. Retrieved March 6,
2015, fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/graduate.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, (2012). Harper Collins Publishers. Retrieved March 6,
2015, fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/graduate.
Corbett, A. (2007). Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business
Venturing, 22(1), 97-118.
Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research: meaning and perspectives in the research process (3rd
Edition). London: Sage Publications.
Dhliwayo, Shepherd. (2008). Experiential learning in entrepreneurship education: A Prospective Model for South
African Tertiary Institutions. Journal of Education +Training, 50 (4), 329-332.
Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry. (2008). Survey of entrepreneurship in higher education in Europe
(Main Report), 199-202. Retrieved January 29, 2015, fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/poli...asures/training_education/highedsurvey_en.pdf
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Clerc, N. L. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a
new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30 (9), 701-720.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship
education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32 (7), 569-593.
Entrepreneurial. (n.d.). Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/entrepreneurial.
Framework. (n.d.). An Encyclopædia Britannica Company. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/framework.
Gelderen, M. V. (2010). Autonomy as the guiding aim of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Education +
Training, 52 (8/9), 710-721.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2013). Key indicators. Retrieved January 16, 2015, fromhttp://www.gemconsortium.org/key-indicators.
Graduate-1. (n.d.). An Encyclopædia Britannica Company. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/graduate.
Graduate-2. (n.d.). Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/graduate.
Graduate-3. (n.d.). Vocabulaty.com. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/graduate.
Gorgievski, M.J., Ascalon, M.E. & Stephan, U. (2011). Small business owners' success criteria, a values approach to
personal differences. Journal of Small Business Management, 49, 207-232.
Harvey, L. (2004). Analytic quality glossary. Quality Research International. Retrieved March 19, 2013, fromhttp://www.qualityresearchinternational.co m/glossary/assessment.htm.
Hegarty, C. (2006). It‘s not an exact science: teaching entrepreneurship in Northern Ireland. Journal of Education +
Training, 48(5), 321-322.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910610677036.
Heinonen, J. and Poikkijoki, S. A. (2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education:
mission impossible?. Journal of Management Development, 25 (1), 80-94.
Page 96
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Henry, C., Hill F., & Leitch C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught?
Part I. Journal of Education + Training, 47 (2), 98-107.
Herrmann, K., Hannon, P., Cox, J., Ternouth, P., & Crowley, T. (2008). Developing entrepreneurial graduates:
putting entrepreneurship at the centre of higher education. The Report made by CIHE, NCGE, and
NESTA, 1-40.
Hytti, U. and Kuopusjarvi, P. (2004). Evaluating and measuring entrepreneurship and enterprise education:
methods, tools, and practices. Small Business Institute, Business Research and Development Centre, Turku
School of economics and Business Administration.
Ibrahim, A. B., & Soufani, K. (2002). Entrepreneurship education and training in Canada: a critical assessment.
Journal of Education + Training, 44 (8), 421-430.
Isaacs, E., Visser, K., Friedrich, C., & Brijal, P. (2007). Entrepreneurship education and training at the further
education and training (FET) level in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 27, 613-629.
Izquierdo, E., Deschoolmeester, D., & Salazar, D. (2005, July). The importance of competencies for
entrepreneurship: a view from entrepreneurs and scholars’ perspective. Present at IntEnt Conference in
Reino Unido.
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49-62.
Johannisson, B. (1991). University training for entrepreneurship: Swedish approaches. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 3(1), 67-82.
Lackéus, M., Lundqvist, M., Williams Middleton, K. (2013, May). How can entrepreneurship bridge between
traditional and progressive education?. Presented at ECSB Entrepreneurship Education Conference in
Århus, Denmark.
Mabin, V.J. & Marshall, S.J. (2011). Beyond assessment: assuring student learning in higher education. Proceedings
of the symposium on assessment and learner outcomes. Retrieved February 3, 2013, fromhttp://www.victoria.ac.nz/vbs/teaching/publications/Beyond-Assessment.pdf.
Markowska, M. (2011)., Entrepreneurial competence development: triggers, processes, and consequences.
Jönköping International Business School Jönköping University. Unpublished Dissertation, 2011, pp. 28-40
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health (Seventh Edition). (2003).
Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. Retrieved March 6, 2015, fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/graduate.
Millman, C., Matlay, H., & Liu, F. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in China: a case study approach. Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15 (4), 802-815.
Mishra, S. (2007). Quality assurance in higher education: an introduction. The Director of National Assessment and
Accreditation Council (NAAC), pp.1-101. Retrieved January 29, 2015, fromhttp://www.col.org/sitecollectiondocuments/pub_qahe_intro.pdf.
Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship Education: A Review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact
indicators. Journal of Education + Training, 52 (1), 20-47.
Noel, T. W., & Latham, G. P. (2006). The importance of learning goals versus outcome goals for entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 7(4), 213-220.
Obschonka, M. Silbereisen, R. K., Rodermund, E. S., & Stuetzer, M. (2010). Nascent entrepreneurship and the
developing individual: early entrepreneurial competence in adolescence and venture creation success
during the career. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 121-133.
Ogbo, A. (2012). The role of entrepreneurship in economic development: the Nigerian perspective. European
Journal of Business and Management, 4(8), 95-96. Retrieved January 29, 2015, fromhttp://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/view/1937/1917.
Piper, D.W. (1993). Quality management in university (Volume 1). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing
Service.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary. (2010). Random House, Inc. Retrieved March 6, 2015,
fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/graduate.
Salamzadeh, A., Salamzadeh, Y. and Daraei, M.R. (2011). Toward a systematic framework for an entrepreneurial
university: a study in Iranian context with an IPOO model. Global Business and Management Research:
An International Journal, 3(1), 30-31. Retrieved January 29, 2015, fromhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530376.pdf.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to
entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26, 243-263.
Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping (Vol. 8). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Page 97
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, 14 (2), 168.
Systematic-1. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved March 26, 2015, from Dictionary.com
website:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/systematic.
Systematic-2. (n.d.). An Encyclopædia Britannica Company. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/systematic.
Szirmai, A., Naude, W., & Goedhuys, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic development: an
overview. Oxford University Press.
Tan, S. S. and Ng, C. K. F. (2006). A problem-based learning approach to entrepreneurship education. Journal of
Education + Training, 48 (6), 416-428.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2013). The innovative and entrepreneurial university: Higher education,
innovation and entrepreneurship in focus. Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Economic
Development Administration. 18-20. Retrieved January 29, 2015, fromhttp://www.eda.gov/pdf/The_Innovative_and_Entrepreneurial_University_Report.pdf.
Varblane, U. & Mets, T. (2010). Entrepreneurship education in the higher education institutions (HEIs) of post-
communist european countries. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Place in The Global
Economy, 4 (3), 204-219.
Wadhwa, V., Aggarwal, L., Holly, K. Z., & Salkever, A. (2009). The anatomy of an entrepreneur: making of a
successful entrepreneur. Kauffman: The Foundation of Entrepreneurship.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conception of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex
decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407-415.
WordNet 3.0, Farlex Clipart Collection. (2012). Princeton University: Farlex Inc. Retrieved March 6, 2015, fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/graduate.
Page 98
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Page 99
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
USING THE BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS AS A
METHODS APPROACH TO TEACHING
ENTREPRENEURIAL FINANCE
William T. Jackson, USF St. Petersburg
Daniel James Scott, USF St. Petersburg
Nathan Schwagler, USF St. Petersburg
ABSTRACT
There has been considerable discussion and debate about the ability to teach
entrepreneurship. And while this debate seems to have ended with a resounding yes (Henry, Hill
and Leitch, 2005a, 2005b) there are still many unanswered questions. Even traditional
management scholars (Drucker, 1985) recognize the uniqueness of the discipline and encourage
an appropriate pedagogy to support that discipline. The same can be said for the true disciples
of the field of entrepreneurship (Kuratko, 2005; Katz, 2003).
Most recently, however, this discussion has turned to, not whether we can teach
entrepreneurship, but rather are we teaching it the right way. Neck and Greene (2011) called for
a re-evaluation of pedagogy to focus on teaching entrepreneurship from a methods approach.
Instead of dismissing the ability to teach entrepreneurship, the authors provided a warranted
call for pedagogical improvements. The purpose of this paper is to provide further
encouragement and support for not only this concept, but to offer a methods approach in
teaching financial methods in entrepreneurship classes. Specifically, financial issues that surface
using the business model canvas will be addressed and pedagogical recommendations will be
provided.
INTRODUCTION
Many faculty members in the field of Entrepreneurship give very little thought to the
relevance and efficacy of teaching the concepts of entrepreneurship in higher education. We, a
priori, assume away the controversy that has existed for a number of years. We know it is an
important concept, our students seem excited, and sometimes we even bring upon us resentment
and the wrath from other academics from other disciplines—which we interpret as we must be
doing something right. Recently, however, our framework of complacency was called to task by
two of the discipline’s leaders in entrepreneurial pedagogy (Neck and Greene, 2011). The
authors challenged the field’s academic community to begin approaching our teaching from a
methods perspective. It was clearly and carefully pointed out that:
“The current approaches to entrepreneurship are based on a world of yesterday—a world where precedent
was the foundation for future action, where history often did predict the future. Yet
entrepreneurship is about creating new opportunities and executing in uncertain and even currently
unknowable environments (p. 55)”
In addition, while the relationship of finance understanding and entrepreneurship
principles is critical for a successful entrepreneurial launch and sustainability, the concepts being
Page 100
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
covered in finance has been slow in progressing to keep up with this phenomenon. While
understanding ratio analysis and financial statements is relevant, issues facing the startup are
much more diverse and should be addressed from a methods approach as well.
The purpose of this paper is to operationalize the method approach of teaching
entrepreneurship as supported by Neck and Greene through the use of the Business Model
Canvas specifically as it relates to how we teach financial issues in entrepreneurship. The
approach of using the Business Model Canvas meets the six characteristics as defined by Neck
and Greene in that it: provides a set of transferable skills and techniques for new venture
creation; students walk away with a toolkit applicable for all startups; is founded on and
reinforces the creative problem solving process; relies on iterations for optimal results;
encourages experimentation; and is practiced again and again—not just in one class but across
the curriculum.
LITERATURE REVIEW
As mentioned in the introduction, the debate of the efficacy of teaching entrepreneurship
continues to exist (Wasserman & Hwang, 2012). This is true even after many successful
programs have evolved across the nation (and the world). Much of this proliferation of success
can be directly attributed to the members of organizations such as USASBE (United States
Association of Small Business and Entrepreneurship) and ICSB (International Council of Small
Business) as these organizations continues to emphasize pedagogy as one of their pillars. Much
of the controversy, however, is as Neck and Greene point out due to the focus of coverage in
many of those programs.
It is not surprising that there continues to be conflicting camps in regard to the
possibilities of success in teaching Entrepreneurship. Much of this debate it appears comes from
the continued lack of consensus in defining entrepreneurship itself which publically was aired in
the 80s (Carland, Boulton, & Carland, 1984; Gartner, 1985; Carland, Hoy, & Carland, 1988) and
continues to this day. While many have accepted the basic premise as described by Coulter
(2001) that entrepreneurship is simply the process where individuals create value through
innovation and uniqueness. Others define any small business (Gartner, 1985) as an entrepreneur.
There is even as Neck and Greene (2011) point out a return to attempting to associating traits
with the definition.
Unfortunately this has led to most entrepreneurship programs focusing on operational
skill sets that justify the acceptance of teaching these concepts to our students. For the most part,
we are still enamored with focusing on the business plan (Solomon, 2007; Neck & Greene, 2011;
Blank, 2012). This is especially true in many of the new international initiatives (Kobia, 2010;
Kirby & Ibrahim, 2011; Mwasalwiba, 2010). Or as Neck and Greene emphasize, “the analytical
approach of teaching opportunity evaluation, feasibility analysis, business planning and financial
forecasting is the cornerstone for most entrepreneurship curricula today” (p. 57).
Morris, Kuratko and Cornwall (2013) propose that entrepreneurial education should tie
closely to the need for assessment of individual program and that this can be accomplished by a
focus and scrutiny of competencies. As these authors indicate, competencies refer to
“knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and behavior” that results in the successful accomplishment
of a desired action. Due to the diversity of entrepreneurial programs across the nation and world,
no single desired outcome is unanimously agreed upon. Morris et al. go on to suggest that these
approaches may include business basics, entrepreneurship basics, or entrepreneurial thinking and
acting. If then the focus of the educational unit is true entrepreneurship and one of tied to the
Page 101
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
methods approach (Neck and Greene, 2011) these competencies may include: opportunity
recognition, creative problem solving, effecting change, innovating, or adaptation to name a few.
There are many others that have called for a different approach to teaching
entrepreneurship and others that have avowed that it cannot be taught. In one very
comprehensive study on entrepreneurial education, Solomon, Duffy and Tarabishy (2002)
strongly contend that teaching entrepreneurship is different that teaching other business school
subject matter. According to these authors, students must be competent in subject matter focused
on starting a business rather than managing a business. These students must also be able to thrive
in an environment of uncertainty and use the latest technologies to mitigate this ambiguity.
While Mwasalwiba (2010) contends that as a body of knowledge, entrepreneurship
education should be built on a “foundation of a common theoretical framework” and there exists
a lack of alignment. According to this author the answer is not to teach exactly the same subject
matter, but to at least agree to some commonalities that art taught by all using the same
framework.
In a follow-up to his well-recognized study in 2002 (Solomon et.al.), Solomon (2007)
further suggested that the challenge to educators will be to craft courses, programs and major
fields of study that meet the rigors of academia while keeping a reality-based focus and
entrepreneurial climate in the learning experience environment.
All of this discussion and debate clearly points to a need for better teaching methods. Few
programs have truly embraced the methods approach of teaching entrepreneurship which offers
tremendous opportunities in advancing the discipline and the student outcomes across the nation.
While there are many ways of moving to this more inclusive process, this paper focuses on the
use of the Business Model Canvas as a means to this end in the area of finance.
THE BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS
The Business Model Canvas is a tool that was created by Alexander Osterwalder to help
reach his aspiration “to change the way people design, test, and build strategies and
businesses…[with the intent of] bringing the best conceptual tools out there online and making
them so useful, practical and attractive that no business person can resist” (Business Model
Alchemist Blog). Even with its considerable acceptance, however, Osterwalder (2012b) has
found that there is a disparity in the sophistication levels of users. He has described these levels
of sophistication as:
• Level 0 Strategy – The Oblivious: Focus on products/value propositions alone rather than
the value proposition AND the business model.
• Level 1 Strategy – The Beginners: Use the Business Model Canvas as a checklist.
• Level 2 Strategy – The Masters: Outcompete others with a superior business model
where every one of the business model building blocks reinforces each other (e.g. Nintendo Wii,
Nespresso, Dell).
• Level 3 Strategy – The Invincible: Continuously disrupt themselves while their business
models are still successful (e.g. Apple, Amazon.com). (Business Model Alchemist Blog)
While the idea of a business model is a well-established principle in strategic
management circles, it has mostly been used as a descriptor rather than a tool for “managing”
operational concerns of a business. Business Modeling (not to be confused with the business
model) is a rapidly growing area in entrepreneurship. While this new interest has been primarily
Page 102
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
in the practitioner side, recent activity is being seen on the academic side as well (Solaimani &
Bouwman, 2012; Lindgren, 2012).
As suggested by Solaimani and Bouwman (2012), there are many theoretical concepts
and ontologies but few have utilized these frameworks for strategic purposes. This omission has
perpetuated the “lack of alignment between strategic ‘what to do’ and the operational ‘how to do
it’ (p. 655). The Kaufman Foundation recognized this omission in the space occupied by SME’s
and funded a major project to use this process to support innovation (Lindgren, 2012). Even the
United States Association of Small Business & Entrepreneurship (USASBE) got on board at its
last annual conference to hold special workshops of the increased use of the tool.
The purpose of this paper is not to re-teach the business model but rather to demonstrate
how the methods approach is appropriate to using the business model in teaching new techniques
in financial modeling.
The business model canvas (http://businessmodelgeneration.com/canvas) is becoming
increasingly prevalent as a pedagogical tool in the field of entrepreneurship. As defined by Alex
Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur in their book Business Model Generation: A Handbook for
Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers, “a business model describes the rationale of how
an organization creates, delivers, and captures value.”
THE BUSINESS MODEL ELEMENTS
The business model is composed of nine building blocks, positioned in such a way that
each block is adjacent to the blocks it most influences, and vice versa. On a more macro level,
the blocks are positioned to mimic the functionality of the human brain, with the blocks on the
left – Key Activities, Key Resources, Key Partnerships and Cost Structure – driven by logic, the
blocks on the right – Customer Segments, Customer Relationships, Channels and Revenue
Streams – dictated by emotion, and the Value Proposition block being the equilibrium point.
Page 103
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
In a similar vein, the blocks toward the top of the canvas are more abstract and
qualitative, while the blocks toward the bottom are more specific and quantitative. Of course the
“bottom line” is the most outwardly finance driven: Revenue Streams and Cost Structure.
THE FINANCIAL MODEL
Today, after students have completed their hypotheses regarding a given business model,
the major thrust of coursework is focused on product-market fit, where the assumptions tested
primarily revolve around whether the proposed value proposition is meeting the market need.
When considering the learning objectives of students in entrepreneurship courses,
engaging in exploration of product-market fit is absolutely critical. However, does it provide the
most complete, well rounded evaluation of the business model? Could this qualitative process be
bolstered and enhanced by adding integrated quantitative analysis?
Traditionally, and particularly in small business management coursework, a financial
forecast has been the option for allowing students to showcase their understanding of the fiscal
underpinnings of a business model. Yet there are several drawbacks to this type of analysis:
1. Revenues are forecasted without clear ties to a selected go-to-market strategy.
2. Operational costs are forecasted without clear ties to revenue and growth.
3. Financial statements are forecasted without rigorous testing of hypotheses in lock step
with product and market validation.
If the key learning objective for students is to develop a deep understanding of a
dynamic, high-growth potential business model, and the capital structure required to power it, the
traditional financial forecast should be replaced with a financial model.
Financial models differ from financial forecasts in that they place a premium on key
performance indicators over line-item accounting, what-if analysis over predictions, and ties to
business model hypotheses over display of detail.
THE LEARNING OUTCOMES
Key performance indicators (or KPI) are measurements that are used to evaluate the
success of a proposed business model. What-if analysis is the systematic process of changing one
assumed KPI’s value to see how that change affects the outcome of other assumptions in the
model. The key learning outcomes of using a financial model in conjunction with a business
model include the following:
1. Understanding the components of, and developing, a validated financial ask to support a
proposed business model.
2. Understanding the working capital structure, cash position, and capital burn rate of a
proposed business model.
3. Understanding the organizational resource needs to meet a proposed business model.
4. Understanding the cost structure of a proposed business model.
5. Understanding the true customer acquisition cost, life time value of a customer, and the
relationship between the two in a proposed business model.
Page 104
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE MINIMUM VIABLE FINANCIAL MODEL
Four of the nine business model canvas blocks can be associated with fifteen core KPIs
that allow for the stated learning outcomes.
Channels
Five distinct channel phases are considered in the Channels Building Block, whether
owned or partnered, direct or indirect:
1. Awareness
2. Evaluation
3. Purchase
4. Delivery
5. After Sales
Each of these five phases is crucial to consider when completing the canvas, and several
have direct impact on the Cost Structure Building Block. For example, Awareness and
Evaluation tactics directly contribute to Customer Acquisition Costs. Purchase, Delivery and
After Sales tactics may directly contribute to Cost of Goods Sold.
However, the most viable and measurable KPIs regarding the Channel Building Block
involve the Awareness and Evaluation channel phases, as they allow us to understand the
strategy for customer acquisition. The two KPIs for the Channel Building Block are:
1. Reach to Lead Conversion Rate. This percentage shows the expected conversion of
individuals targeted from Awareness to Evaluation. Those potential customers reached
must be identifiable, even if in aggregate numbers. To convert that individual to a lead,
that individual must be identifiable and have connected, even in a small way, such as
providing an email address on a website, with the company.
Page 105
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
2. Lead to Customer Conversion Rate. This percentage shows the expected conversion of
leads to paying customer, Evaluation to Purchase.
The table below demonstrates the relationship between Dave McClure’s Product Marketing
for Pirates: AARRR! Framework (http://500hats.typepad.com/500blogs/2007/06/internet-
market.html), also adopted into Steve Blank’s Startup Owner’s Manual, to the measurable Reach
to Lead to Customer framework, to the KPIs explained above.
Revenue Streams
The Revenue Streams Building Block allows students to develop strategy for collecting
cash from each targeted Customer Segment. The three KPI for the Revenue Streams Building
Block are:
3. Price, Average or Monthly Collections. The dollar amount of average revenue collected,
per purchase, from a customer.
4. New or Reacquired Customers. This percentage indicates the actual number of new or
required customers for a month. If billed monthly, the customer is not new nor
reacquired, but retained. If a customer is not automatically billed every month, they are
considered reacquired with each purchase.
5. Monthly Retention Rate. This percentage indicates the customers retained from month to
month. If automatically billed monthly, we would expect this number to approach 100%.
If a business relies on new or reacquired customers for each purchase, we would expect
this number to approach 0%.
Acquisition ? Reach
?
Reach to Lead
Conversion
Activation ? Lead
?
Customer
Acquisition Cost
(CAC)
Retention
?
Lead to
Customer
Conversion
Referral
?
Revenue ? Customer
Page 106
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Key Resources
The Key Resources Building Block allows students to communicate the most important
assets required to allow the business model to function as proposed. Typically, this would
include Physical, Intellectual, Human and Financial. The Financial resources will be determined
in the completion of a Financial Model. The Intellectual resources will be covered in the Cost
Structure Building Block. The Physical and Human resources are covered by the two KPIs that
follow:
6. Employee Count. The actual number of full-time equivalents employed by the firm
during the month.
7. Fixed Assets. The actual dollar amount of fixed assets on a firm’s balance sheet during
the month.
Cost Structure
The Cost Structure Building Block allows students to inventory the infrastructural costs
incurred to operate the proposed business model. The remaining eight KPIs are all elements of
the Cost Structure Building Block, and follow:
8. Cost of Goods Sold. The actual dollar amount of cost to produce and sell a product.
Dividing this dollar amount by sales will produce a Cost of Goods Sold percentage.
9. Customer Acquisition Costs. The dollar amount spent on all marketing efforts for the
month. This number can be analyzed by dividing it by Reach, to determine Cost per
Reach, Leads, to determine Cost per Lead, or Customers, to determine the Cost per
Customer.
10. Payroll Expenses. The actual dollar amount spent in compensating the Employee Count.
11. Other Operating Expenses. The actual dollar amount of Operating Expenses, other than
Payroll Expenses.
12. Days Receivables Turn. The average number of days to collect upon Accounts
Receivable.
13. Days Inventory Turn. The average number of days inventory is held before sale.
14. Days Payables Turn. The average number of days to pay on Accounts Payable.
15. Additional Capital Required. Also known as a “buffer,” an additional amount of capital
requested in a financing proposal to cover miscalculations or unforeseen costs.
These fifteen KPI can also be distributed into three elements of a minimum viable financial
model, with additional benefit derived from being aligned more easily with a standard business
plan.
Page 107
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Marketing
1. Reach to Lead Conversion Rate (%)
2. Lead to Customer Conversion Rate (%)
3. Price, Average or Monthly Collections ($)
4. New or Reacquired Customers (#)
5. Monthly Retention Rate (%)
6. Customer Acquisition Costs ($)
Operations
7. Cost of Goods Sold ($)
8. Payroll Expenses ($)
9. Other Operating Expenses ($)
10. Total Employees (#)
11. Total Fixed Assets ($)
Funding
12. Days Receivables Turn (#)
13. Days Inventory Turn (#)
14. Days Payables Turn (#)
15. Additional Capital Required, including Pre-Launch Fixed Assets and Soft Costs ($)
Page 108
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE MARKETING
The primary marketing tasks for translating a business model to a financial model include:
1. Delineate between user and buyer.
2. Understand that in order to reach a buyer; you must first identify who they are, what
message you will convey, when and where that message will be delivered, and why they
are the correct audience.
3. Select an optimized awareness channel or set of channels based on cost, assumed
effectiveness, and ability to scale.
4. Understand that converting an identifiable buyer into a lead, some exchange of value
must occur to validate the relationship is advancing.
5. Propose a plan to convert identifiable buyers into leads, then leads into customers.
After completing the primary tasks, students can then make hypotheses regarding their
optimized strategies regarding the six marketing KPIs.
Page 109
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE OPERATIONS
Operations, or the cost expression of operations, very often follow revenues during the
first year of a startup. For example, employees will be hired as needed – or as can be afforded.
Cost of goods sold also has its own set of considerations regarding availability, pricing and terms
of inventory that may also fluctuate with revenues.
For most student projects, benchmarks exist for costs, including those from the United
States Census Bureau and through the RMA Annual Statement Studies.
THE FUNDING
Page 110
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
When the cost of operations is removed from the revenue captured through marketing,
the students will have discovered the core of their financial ask – cash required to cover
operational costs. In addition, however, they will also need to take into account the timing of
cash in and outflow. Considering this final piece will provide students with their operating cash
requirements.
Above and beyond the day-to-day cash required, most business also require pre-launch
fixed asset and soft costs. Soft costs can include deposits, legal fees, etc. They may also wish to
add cash reserves to their financial ask to buffer any unforeseen issues.
CONCLUSION AND VALUE PROPOSITION
“Teaching entrepreneurship as a method requires going beyond understanding, knowing, and talking; it
requires using, applying, and acting. Entrepreneurship requires practice” (Neck and Greene, 2012,
p. 62).
In this paper first identified the need for teaching entrepreneurship from a methods
approach as opposed to relying simply on approaches that are slowly seeing their relevancy
diminish. Next an overview of Osterwalder’s and Pigneur’s (2010) book Business Model
Generation was provided. Lastly, an example of how finance could be incorporated into
entrepreneurial education was provided. While there are many ways to operationalize the
methods approach, the financial example provided in this paper would meet the six requirements
specified by Neck and Green—it provides a set of transferable skills and techniques for new
venture creation; students walk away with a toolkit applicable for all startups; is founded on and
reinforces the creative problem solving process; relies on iterations for optimal results;
encourages experimentation; and is practiced again and again.
REFERENCES
Blank, S. G. (2007). The Four Steps to the Epiphany (4
th
Edition), Quad/Graphics.
Blank, S. G. (2012). Blog: Business Model Versus Business Plan,http://steveblank.com/category/business-model-
versus-business-plan/.
Blank, S.G. and Dorf, B. (2012) The Startup Owner’s Manual: The Step-by-Step Guide for Building a Great
Company, Pescadero, CA: K & S Ranch, Inc. Publishers.
Carland, J. H., F. Boulton, & J. Carland (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A
conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9 (2), 354-359.
Carland, J. W., F. Hoy, & J. A. Carland (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the question worth asking?. American
Journal of Small Business, 12 (4), 33-39.
Coulter, M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in Action, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
DeTienne, D.R. and Chandler, G.N. (2004), ‘The role of gender in opportunity identification’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 31 (3): 365-86.
Fiet, J.O. (2001), ‘The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (2): 101-17.
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy
of Management Review, 10 (Oct), 696-706.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught?
Part I’, Education and Training, 2(3): 98-111.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught?
Part I’, Education and Training, 2(3): 158-69.
Katz, J.A. (2003), ‘The chronological and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education’, Journal
of Business Venturing, 18(2): 283-300.
Kirby, D. A. & N. Ibrahim (2011). Entrepreneurship education and the creation of an enterprise culture: Provisional
results from an experiment in Egypt. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 7, 181-193.
Page 111
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Kobia, M. & S. Damany (2010). Toward a search for the meaning of entrepreneurship. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 34 (2), 110-127.
Kuratko, D.F. (2005), ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, challenges’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3): 577-98.
Kuratko & R. Hodgetts (2004). Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, Practice, 6
th
Ed., Thomson South Western,
Stanford, CT.
Lindgren, P. (2012). Business model innovation leadership: How do SME’s strategically lead business model
innovation?. International Journal of Business and Management, 7 (14), 53-66.
Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F. and Cornwall, J.R. (2013), Entrepreneurship Programs and the Modern University,
Northampton, MA: Edward Elger.
Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact
indicators. Education and Training, 52 (1), 20-47,
Neck, H. M. & P. G. Greene, (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of
Small Business Management, 49 (1), 55-70.
Osterwalder, A. & Y. Pigneur (2009 and 2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game
Changers, and Challengers, Self-Published.
Osterwalder, A. (2012a). Blog: Help Change How Businesses are Built: Looking for Tech Co-Founders and Senior
RoR Dev.http://www.businessmodelalchemist.com/.
Osterwalder, A. (2012b). Blog: Drop Your Training Wheels: Competing on Business Models.http://www.businessmodelalchemist.com/.
Solaimani, S. & H. Bouwman (2012). A framework for the alignment of business modeled business processes: A
generic model for trans-sector innovation. Business Process Management Journal, 18 (4), 655-679.
Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, 14 (2), 168-182.
Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S. and Tarabishy, A. (2002), The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A
nationwide survey and analysis’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1): 65-86.
Wasserman, N. & V. W. Hwang (2012). Can entrepreneurship be taught? Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2012.
Page 112
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Page 113
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
DEVELOPING UNDERGRADUATE
ENTREPRENEURIAL CAPACITY FOR SOCIAL
VENTURE CREATION
Erik Noyes, Babson College
Benjamin Linder, Olin College of Engineering
ABSTRACT
Traditional college and university entrepreneurship programs focus on profit-maximizing
startups. We describe a new effort called Affordable Design and Entrepreneurship (ADE) to
develop capacity for venture creation that seeks to maximize social benefit. ADE is an
undergraduate program co-launched by Babson College, a top-ranked entrepreneurship
educator, and Olin College of Engineering, a recognized innovator in engineering education.
ADE changes the nature of entrepreneurship education by shifting the focus to social venture
creation opportunities in poverty-afflicted areas internationally (within India, Ghana, and
Morocco) and nationally in the USA (within Alabama, Massachusetts, and Mississippi). Here,
we detail the process by which a team of entrepreneurship and engineering students co-creates a
social venture with communities in Ghana. The analysis suggests options for institutions to offer
meaningful, experiential instruction in social entrepreneurship and sustainable enterprise.
Keywords: entrepreneurship education, social venture, human-centered design,
entrepreneurial experimentation, business planning.
INTRODUCTION
Upon surveying entrepreneurship programs, one will observe that the focus of
entrepreneurship education is much narrower than the known contexts for entrepreneurial action
(Vesper & Gartner, 1997; Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005; Corbett, 2011; Neck, Greene & Brush,
2014). Overwhelmingly, most undergraduate and graduate entrepreneurship programs focus on
independent, for-profit startups (Greene, Katz & Johannisson, 2004; Honig, 2004; Neck &
Greene, 2011). Yet, entrepreneurial thinking is known to be present and create value in social,
corporate and even governmental settings (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Shane & Venkataraman,
2000; Sarasvathy, 2009; Saifan, 2012).
Business plan creation, while important, accounts for upwards of 70% of all
entrepreneurship courses offered in the United States and is generally focused on traditional, for-
profit startups (Rich & Gumpert, 1985; Honig, 2004; Noyes & Brush, 2012). As such, it is
comparatively rare for entrepreneurship programs to offer courses on the different forms and
contexts for entrepreneurial activity. Family entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship,
different regional and international settings for entrepreneurship, and particularly social
entrepreneurship, are often neglected in the pursuit of what might be called a high-tech/high-
growth bias in entrepreneurship education (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003). Moreover, those
passionate to initiate social change through market mechanisms are often peripheralized in such
Page 114
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
programs and class settings because there is a need to teach core models, heuristics and methods
to establish for-profit ventures, generally serving a narrow group of stakeholders: customers,
venture founders and investors.
This is all against the backdrop of entrepreneurship research, which shows that the most
frequently used textbooks and teaching materials in entrepreneurship instruction are often not
reflective of the true behaviors of successful entrepreneurs--what entrepreneurs actually do in
pursuing, developing or identifying entrepreneurial opportunities (Edelman, Manolova & Brush,
2008, Noyes & Brush, 2012; Neck, Greene & Brush, 2014). Similarly, other research shows that
a high percentage of successful entrepreneurs never even create a business plan (Bygrave, Lange,
and Mollov, 2007). Recent research concludes that the process of planning is important, mostly
for the insights it yields, but a business plan is rarely an assurance of venture success.
Fortunately, approaches are changing to reflect greater realism concerning how entrepreneurs act
(Sarasvathy, 2009; Blank, 2013, Neck, Greene & Brush, 2014).
Accordingly, we highlight the importance of creative entrepreneurial action in the face of
deep uncertainty, particularly when one has social goals in addition to economic objectives.
Specifically, we consider the role of iterative market experimentation in social venture creation,
which may include but is not limited to: identifying social needs with stakeholders, determining
cultural and/or technical requirements for a technology, and prototyping and testing business
models to deliver a social benefit. The focus on the co-creation of entrepreneurial opportunities
with stakeholders, as well as on contexts where secondary industry studies are rarely available or
useful, each differentiate our focus from core entrepreneurship curriculum, generally based on
business planning.
Ideas about prototyping business models in close partnership with customers and
connecting with lead users to develop innovations are not new, particularly in high-tech/high-
growth venturing (Von Hippel, 1986; Blank, 2005; Osterwalder, 2010; Ries, 2011). However,
these ideas are less well known and generally less practiced in social entrepreneurship.
Moreover, those experienced in high-tech/high-growth entrepreneurship often have limited
experience designing and testing social ventures particularly in base of pyramid and emerging
markets where this thinking may be most valuable (Hart & Semanis, 2006). Arguably, it is with
social problems and opportunities where these design-based ideas are most appropriate because
resources are scarce, community stakeholders are the best judge of an innovation’s worth, and
venture-building is necessary to deliver the needed products or services sustainably. Exposing
challenges and progress alike, we detail efforts to create a new experiential social
entrepreneurship program called Affordable Design and Entrepreneurship, or ADE, which
grapples with this unique intersection between design thinking and social entrepreneurship.
We begin by identifying challenges in social entrepreneurship education. These
challenges are presented alongside the argument that experiential entrepreneurship education—
particularly, concrete experience and creative entrepreneurial action in complex contexts—can
transform students’ self-efficacy and ultimately their leadership potential for social venture
creation. Then, we give an overview of ADE, including the objectives and structure, and feature
a short case on an agricultural venture in Ghana supporting peri-urban and rural, cassava-
processing women. We end with a frank discussion of educational challenges and opportunities
suggested by ADE, which highlight sharp limitations of the current high tech/high growth-
focused model of entrepreneurship education.
Page 115
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
CHALLENGES IN EDUCATING SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS
Surveying the emerging field of social entrepreneurship, Saifan (2012) proposes the
following definition of a social entrepreneur: A social entrepreneur is a mission-driven individual
who uses a set of entrepreneurial behaviours to deliver a social value to the less privileged, all
through an entrepreneurially oriented entity that is financially independent, self-sufficient, or
sustainable. This definition is notionally useful for the purposes of describing social
entrepreneurship and challenges in educating social entrepreneurs, although from a design
perspective we would say the aim is to deliver social value with, or working alongside, primary
stakeholders.
In the social arena, key entrepreneurial concepts, such as venture stakeholders,
willingness-to-pay, product/service value and entrepreneurial leadership, take on highly stylized
meanings. Particularly, when the chief goal is to maximize social impact rather than economic
profits there are different motives when launching and then scaling ventures. The incentive to
launch a venture may be because of social problems and social opportunities that are neglected
by national or local government, NGOs, area social organizations, or even for-profit
entrepreneurs. The need to scale a social venture may come from the size of the social need (e.g.,
clean drinking water, affordable education, income generation opportunities for a group) and the
requirement to put in place a sustainable business model with the potential to yield a hoped-for
benefit.
Social ventures often have a large complex web of stakeholders—individuals and
organizations—who may support, benefit from, or have objections to a social innovation. To
have impact, these stakeholders must be enlisted early on and iteratively to co-create
entrepreneurial opportunities--opportunities that are socially desirable, technologically feasible
and ideally economically self-sustaining. This web of stakeholders, which transcends thinking
about “the customer”, competition or regulators, is generally more complex to understand for
social ventures than for traditional ventures focused only on economic returns.
Social ventures may create rich combinations of social and economic value. Charging
customers, including those who are severely resource constrained, may be a vital mechanism to
achieve social impact and achieve scale and sustainability. Product and service offerings for
resource-constrained target markets may require fundamentally different assumptions about what
constitutes a technology, what defines an innovation, and about the goals of a business model.
Deep and iterative engagement with stakeholders can clarify technology-venture fits as well as
business model requirements. In the discipline of design there is a vast gulf between “designing
for” a user and “designing with” a user—a subtlety that is generally lost in mainstream
management and entrepreneurship education.
Finally, the role of the entrepreneur can be quite different in foreign contexts, particularly
where the entrepreneur is non-native to the country or region where social ventures are explored,
founded or scaled. As such, existing methods to evaluate and shape the feasibility of
entrepreneurial opportunities—which generally assume shared culture—often do not port well
across unfamiliar contexts. The entrepreneur’s challenge is one of relationship building within a
set of stakeholders versus simple analysis, opportunity evaluation and resource marshaling. In
sum, the entrepreneurial team must engage all relevant stakeholders in identifying, shaping and
pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities.
Thus, those passionate about social entrepreneurship need to navigate complex cultural
and economic factors, where secondary data is rarely available or useful if it even exists. In such
Page 116
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
contexts, deep contextual engagement and creative entrepreneurial action with stakeholders often
trump removed, data-driven business planning. Key questions include: What stakeholders are on
the entrepreneurial team? How can the entrepreneurial team achieve the impact it hopes to? How
can technology and business innovation be combined to create new social benefits (and through
what sustainability-focused business models)? And for the entrepreneurship educator, how do
you teach entrepreneurial action and experimentation in such new and unfamiliar contexts?
These questions comprise the scope and focus of Affordable Design and
Entrepreneurship, an international, experiential social venturing collaboration described in
greater detail below. As a short case on venture-building collaborations in Ghana later suggests,
the movement of entrepreneurship education to decidedly social objectives and contexts creates
new complexity and new opportunity for entrepreneurship educators.
AFFORDABLE DESIGN AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ADE is entrepreneurship and engineering collaboration between Babson College and
Olin College of Engineering, both located near Boston, Massachusetts in the United States. The
mission of Babson College is “to educate leaders who create great economic and social value—
everywhere”. Comparably, Olin College’s mission is to “prepare students to become exemplary
engineering innovators who recognize needs, design solutions, and engage in creative enterprises
for the good of the world.” ADE represents an effort by both colleges to combine entrepreneurial
thinking and human-centered design (HCD) to spawn social ventures with measurable impact.
Entrepreneurial action, co-creation with stakeholders, and market tests—not planning—are the
foundation of social venture creation in ADE.
Curriculum-wise, ADE is an international, experiential social entrepreneurship course
jointly offered by both colleges with class meetings on both campuses and trips locally and
abroad to advance a portfolio of social ventures. Approximately 30 students enroll each semester
with most taking the course for one semester, although many take it for two. Students go on
work trips to their partner sites for about two weeks per semester. Past sites and partners have
been located in Alabama, Ghana, India, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Morocco and Uganda. The
inclusion of U.S. sites is a way to recognize poverty exists regionally everywhere in the world
and not just in least-developed countries.
Interdisciplinary teams of entrepreneurship and engineering students identify, develop
and deploy opportunities with social benefit in collaboration with partners. Whether they are
collaborating with agricultural villages in Ghana or rickshaw pullers in India, ADE students are
tasked to understand the unique needs and challenge their stakeholder’s face, to construct and
manage a co-design process and strive to generate a measurable social impact while fulfilling
other academic coursework and responsibilities. Success from the standpoint of an ADE venture
means a team can step away once a technical innovation has been deployed with a sustainable
business model.
A visual depiction of the product-venture portfolio is given in Appendix A, which shows
the stages of the ADE incubation pipeline and specific ventures. As a guide, exploring venture
opportunities with a partner requires one to two semesters; developing and scaling ventures can
take between three to six semesters (or 1.5-3 years). A particular challenge of the course is
exploring, developing and scaling ventures while students are entering and exiting the program.
As such, ADE has novel strategies, including multimedia repositories, knowledge management
processes, and the documentation of market experiments, to support venture continuity across
Page 117
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
semesters. A common metaphor used in ADE is that “students get on the bus and get off the
bus—but the bus never stops”.
The program requires an annual operating budget on the order of $100,000. These funds
are used to execute market experiments (i.e., to fund creative action), make investments in
prototypes and technology development, offset the costs of student travel to partner sites and
support adjunct team advisors. Support has been provided by corporations, foundations and grant
making organizations.
CASSAVA GRATING IN GHANA
The Ghana site team launched in the Spring of 2011 looking at several “Opportunity
Briefs” depicting social challenges and opportunities identified with local partners, one of which
detailed a need to mechanically grate cassava for gari production in villages in the Ashanti
region (see Appendix B). The opportunity was initially explored by the International
Development Design Summit in Ghana in 2009. Cassava, a vital crop in Ghana, is a root
vegetable responsible for 80% of the country’s carbohydrate intake. Gari, made from grated,
pressed and fried cassava, spoils less easily than the whole, unprocessed root. An opportunity
was identified for a small-scale machine to assist gari-producing women with the burdensome
and time-consuming task of grating peeled cassava. While cassava graters exist in market towns
and some larger villages, the majority of rural or village-level grating is done by hand and almost
exclusively by women. Mechanized grating translates to increased gari production and therefore
more food security, less physical exertion and time spent during the grating process, and
potentially new income generation opportunities and markets for women based on new
agricultural processing capability.
The following sections detail complementary efforts in technology development and
venture creation, which required the student team and partners to blend technical and business
innovation. Much of this work was done through the equivalent of $5, $50 and $500
experiments, a form of escalating assumption testing with technologies and markets that was
introduced to the program by Andy Hargadon at UC Davis.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
The team began with stakeholder engagements with community members in a peri-urban
village to explore the opportunity space and potential user needs for a cassava-grating machine.
A strong preference was identified for an electric machine over a manual one. Early on the team
developed and tested both grid- and photovoltaic-powered prototypes, and while both proved
feasible, the team considered the grid-based design to be a more viable entry point for a venture.
They found this configuration to have a significantly shorter payback period for gari-producing
women that were located in a more accessible peri-urban market with demonstrated demand.
The students then refined their prototype into a product through a series of co-design
engagements and pilot tests with gari-producing women in multiple villages. Affordability, ease
of operation, cleanliness and safety were all critical design considerations presenting a host of
technical challenges to solve, such as coming up with a grater head that users can remove and
service that is highly balanced and producible in volume at low cost. The team also collaborated
with local manufacturers to design the machine for local assembly and repair, which included
performing a number of fabrication and production tests together to refine the design.
Page 118
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
VENTURE CREATION
The team also concurrently explored business models that would make mechanized
cassava grating sustainable. They initially explored individual versus collective ownership, and
working with the chief and elders of a village, they piloted a business cooperative, comprised of
a number of village residents, which was unsuccessful. They investigated individual willingness-
and ability-to-pay through sales of prototypes as part of the pilot tests, establishing an
appropriate price point to drive affordability. They soon identified sub segments of the gari-
producing market, one of which was lower income women willing to band together to purchase a
machine, effectively creating a mini coop. These sales tests also identified larger existing gari-
producing coops that preferred a much larger machine.
Through additional testing the team settled on an individual ownership model over
alternatives, such as renting or leasing, and got to work on the sustainability of the model. The
pilot tests verified that the machine had a short payback period, less than one year, at modest
volume pricing. However, the women with the most need were found to have too little capital to
afford the machine without financing, so the students developed a micro loan service to
accompany the product for those stakeholders. Distribution was a significant challenge due to the
geographic spread of the primary beneficiaries, so they visited radio stations, ran tests with
agricultural shops, known as input dealers, and enlisted more experienced gari women to serve as
village-level entrepreneurs to trial selling and collecting payments.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Above we highlight only one of several ADE social ventures. In fact, there are four to
eight active ventures and projects every semester across our four partner sites (see Appendix A).
The challenges in operating such a joint, international, experiential program are significant.
These include securing funding to explore, launch and scale ventures; establishing
partners/partner sites in each of the geographies; formalizing processes to reliably drive deep and
meaningful engagement with partners; and, at home, dealing with significant cultural differences
between the two colleges, particularly the values and norms of an entrepreneurship college in
relation to a design-oriented engineering college.
The short case above does not examine the specifics of advisor-team relations, which
shape the co-creation process with partners and the final deliverables on a per semester basis.
There is a multifaceted process of negotiating scope with the partners, the advisor, and the
student team each semester to identify what deliverables are desirable, affordable and achievable
within the given time frame. Because students’ ability levels and motivations are mixed, advisors
often need to assume a player-coach role, not entirely driving the process with students and
partners but also offering strong counsel on priorities, thoughtful relationship management, and
how to handle unexpected challenges.
One particularly interesting issue, not examined here, is the class’ management of the
product-venture portfolio and specifically the need to prioritize, de-prioritize and shut down
projects within the ADE “firm”. As with all entrepreneurial efforts, there is a high risk of failure
for any given venture and success is far from assured. The students are given an ongoing role in
managing the product-venture incubation pipeline. This includes prioritizing projects for
investment based on their expected social impact relative to their resource intensity looking
across the full portfolio. Moreover, each student team is expected to develop new opportunities
with partners to feed into the ADE pipeline.
Page 119
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Overall, the administrative requirements to operate ADE are high, considering partner
relationship management, travel logistics, risk management, budgets and the challenges of
coordinating a two-college program. Nevertheless, the learning experiences suggest a number of
interesting directions for social entrepreneurship education, which is too often neglected and not
handled experientially in entrepreneurship programs.
SUMMARY
This paper started with the observation that 70% of all entrepreneurship courses offered
in the U.S. focus on business plan creation, generally for for-profit, independent startups.
Moreover, it discussed the far-reaching implications of an entrepreneurship education model
largely focused on high-tech/high-growth venturing as the most desirable form of
entrepreneurship. One unintended consequence of this focus is that entrepreneurship students
struggle to find meaningful social entrepreneurship courses—let alone social entrepreneurship
experiences—in the context of their education.
ADE suggests an approach where students can be pushed to see the limitations of
traditional business planning, particularly when creative entrepreneurial action is required to
pursue, clarify or identify entrepreneurial opportunities. The program is a learning lab where
students grapple with cultural, technological and business uncertainty. The greatest uncertainty—
and learning—comes from pursuing and managing a co-creation process with stakeholders to
explore, evaluate and seize social opportunities. “Designing with” stakeholders is much harder
than “designing for” them, but it is more likely to produce a social impact as well as experienced
young entrepreneurs.
We believe the ADE model can deliver on the promise of “ambidextrous” social
entrepreneurs who can bridge technical and business model innovation while managing the
inherent complexity and ambiguity. Rarely, is a social opportunity defined by strictly technical
or managerial or organizational concerns. Oppositely, entrepreneurial leaders who can blend
these two capabilities can pursue social opportunities in a wide range of settings with a wide
range of partners.
ADE is not a standard course in which students can participate passively. Thankfully,
committed students from both Babson and Olin Colleges self-select into the program based on a
desire to develop their entrepreneurial leadership and design capabilities in a social context.
Most, but not all, students emotionally commit to ADE because the opportunities and pressures
to perform are real. Broadly, a key opportunity for entrepreneurship education is to evaluate the
usefulness of business plan creation in complex social contexts and to embrace the uncertainty
and learning that comes from creative entrepreneurial action.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation, the
Toyota Foundation, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, VentureWell, Continuum LLC, the
Babson Social Innovation Lab, Verizon, and the U.S. Global Development Lab within USAID
for their generous support of ADE. Moreover, the authors would like to thank current and past
partners, including Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Keoladeo National
Park, Rickshaw Bank, Ecole Nationale de l'Industrie Minérale, Griot Arts Inc, Empower Design,
and the Alabama Hale County Empowerment and Revitalization Organization.
Page 120
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
APPENDIX A: SNAPSHOT OF THE ADE PRODUCT-VENTURE PIPELINE
Page 121
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
APPENDIX B: ONE OF MANY OPPORTUNITY BRIEFS PROVIDED TO THE GHANA
TEAM
Cassava Grating: Ashanti Region, Ghana
Motivation
Cassava is a staple food throughout Western Africa and many other tropical regions. In Ghana,
cassava is routinely grated to prepare value added products such as gari for sale or use as an
ingredient in domestic cooking. Grating is largely done by hand in rural villages, which is
laborious, time consuming and dangerous. In some cases tubers are transported in sacs to market
to be machine grated, which increases cost, or a traveling grater visit, which provides a limited
schedule. Small-scale grating machines reduce costs and increase production for local gari
women while reducing burden.
Proposed activity
Continue to deploy a low-cost, grid-powered cassava grater in villages in Ghana. Refine the
current production prototype to incorporate lessons learned from local fabricators and create jigs
and fixtures to begin production. Identify supply chain partners for key components, especially
an appropriate motor. Work with agricultural shops (input dealers) and others to start up
distribution and sales. Work with our partners to begin initial operations to take the next step in
scaling up.
Stakeholders
Small-scale mechanization provides assistance to local gari- producing women underserved by
existing machines in the market. These women report that they would use additional income to
grow their businesses, pay for school fees, and build new homes. Machine grating can displace
women hired to grate cassava causing a loss of jobs. Since cassava is extensively processed
throughout the tropical regions, a viable strategy could have widespread application.
Talents needed
Product interaction design, mechanical design, and fabrication with an emphasis on design for
manufacture, component selection, and sourcing. Business modeling, value chain analysis,
financial projections, market analysis, distribution and sales, operations management, and
communication skills.
Page 122
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Status
A small-scale, off-the-shelf electric grater has been developed and 3 initial units have been sold
to women in Adumkrom and PKK with requests for additional machines. A workshop was held
in Suame magazine to co-design with and train fabricators. Conversations were held with a
variety of potential distributers including ag shops, restaurant owners, and gari factory owners.
One machine was placed at an ag shop to gauge demand.
Partners
Technology Consultancy Center (TCC) and Intermediate Technology Transfer Unit (ITTU),
KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana. International Development Innovation Network.
A farmer demonstrating how cassava is harvested with a machete in Adumkrom, a small Ashanti
village near Konongo, Ghana, where ADE has a pilot grater.
Page 123
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
A woman hand grating cassava in PKK near Konongo, Ghana, who later purchased a machine
along with 2 other women.
Women in PKK testing an ADE grater that they purchased for 300 Ghana Cedis with a micro
loan as part of the pilot phase.
REFERENCES
Abu-Saifan, S. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: Definition and boundaries, Technology Innovation Management
Review, vol. 2.
Bygrave, W.D, Lange, J., Mollov, A., Pearlmutter, M., and Singh, S. (2007). Pre-startup formal business plans
and post-startup performance: A study of 116 new ventures, Venture Capital Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1-20.
Blank, S. G. (2005). The Four steps to the epiphany: Successful strategies for products that win. Cafepress.
Blank, S. G. (2013). Why the lean start-pp changes everything. Harvard Business Publishing.
Brush, C., Greene, P. & Hart, M. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of
constructing a resource base. Academy of Management Executive, special issue on Strategic Management
and Entrepreneurship, 15:1, 64-80.
Corbett, A. 2011. Finding your own way: entrepreneurship course development, strategic fit, and the problems of
benchmarking, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 13:1, 18-31.
Costello, C., Neck, H. & Williams, R. (2011). Elements of the entrepreneur experience. Babson Entrepreneur
Experience Labhttp://elab.businessinnovationfactory.com/sites/default/files/pdf/ELab-Elements-
EntExp.pdf
Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S.D. & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial
decision-making: Differences between experts and novices, Journal of Business Venturing, 24:4, 287-309.
Edelman, L., Manolova, T. & Brush, C. 2008. Entrepreneurship education: Correspondence between practices of
nascent entrepreneurs and textbook prescriptions for success. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 7:1, 56-70.
Greene, P.J., Katz, J.A. and Johannisson, B. 2004. Entrepreneurship education, Academy of Management Learning
& Education, 3:3, 238-241.
Hart, S. & Simanis, E. (2006) Expanding the possibilities at the base of the pyramid, Innovations, Winter, pp. 43-51.
Higgins, D. & Elliot, C. (2010). Learning to make sense: what works in entrepreneurial education, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 35, Iss. 4, pp. 345-367.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency - based planning. Academy of
Management Learning and Education. 3:3, 258-273.
Jennings, C. & Wargnier, J. (2010). Experiential learning: A way to develop agile minds in the knowledge
economy?, Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, Vol. 24, Iss. 3, pp. 14-
16.
Page 124
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Katz, J. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education 1876-1999.
Journal of Business Venturing. 18:2, 283-300.
Kuratko, D. (2005) The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends and Challenges,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 5, pp. 577-597.
Neck, H., Greene, P. & Brush, C. (2014) Teaching Entrepreneurship: A Practice-based Approach, Edward Elgar
Publishing, Northampton, MA.
Neck, H. & Greene, P.G. 2011. Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers; Journal of Small
Business Management, 49:1, 55-70.
Noyes, E. and C. Brush (2012). Teaching entrepreneurial action: Application of creative logic. Entrepreneurial
Action: Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, vol. 14, editors: A. Corbett and J.
Katz.
Osterwalder, A. and Y. Pigneur (2010). Business Model Generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers
and challengers. Wiley: New York.
Peterman, N. & Kennedy, J. 2003. Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 28:2, 129-144.
Rich, S.R. & Gumpert, D.E. 1985. How to write a winning business plan. Harvard Business Review, 3: 3-8.
Ries, Eric (2011). The Lean Startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continues innovation to create radically
successful businesses. Crown Business.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: towards a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to
entrepreneurial contingency, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 243-263.
Sarasvathy, Saras D. (2009). Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S., (2000), The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of
Management Review, 25: 21-226
Stevenson, H. & Jarillo, J. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management, Strategic
Management Journal, 11: 17-27.
Vesper, K. H. & Gartner, W. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business
Venturing. 12:4, 403-421.
Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts, Management Science, 32, no. 7: 791-805.
Page 125
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
EFFECTS OF TRAINING METHOD AND AGE ON
EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS OF MEXICAN YOUTH
ENTREPRENEURS
Héctor X. Ramírez-Pérez, Universidad Panamericana Guadalajara
Ann Marie E. Smith, Dowling College
Jorge E. Franco-López, Universidad Panamericana Guadalajara
Juana Román-Maqueira, Organization of American States
Elsa-Sofia Morote, Dowling College
ABSTRACT
This study examined the effects of two age groups of Mexican youths (18-25 years, n =
44, and 26-35 years, n = 48), within two types of entrepreneurial training programs (coached, n
= 26 and laissez-faire, n = 66) on employability skills (communication, teamwork and
organizing effectively). Participants completed a survey after participating in at least 1-year of
entrepreneurial activity. A 2 X 2 ANOVA evaluated the effects of age group and entrepreneurial
training on employability skills. The results showed that entrepreneurs from 26-35 years have
higher communication and organizing skills than entrepreneurs from 18-25 years regardless of
the training program. Additionally, young adult entrepreneurs (26-35), that participated in the
coached training program increased their communication and teamwork skills. These findings
support the recommendation of age appropriate training.
INTRODUCTION
Only 4% and never more than 11% of youths under 25 are self-employed (Organization
for Economic Co-operation (OECD), 2013). Increasing self-employment rates in youths can be
an important policy target to deal with a key economic issue of high youth unemployment
(OECD, 2013). A survey of 4,769 students (172 high school students and 4,597 college students)
and 326 employers from across the US found that 72% of high school students and 64% of
college students want to start a business someday. Millennial Branding and Internships.com, the
organizations that conducted the survey, found that 61% of high school students and 43% of
college students would rather be an entrepreneur instead of an employee when they graduate
college (Schawbel, 2014). With low self-employment rates, high unemployment rates and the
fresh interest in entrepreneurship, developing entrepreneurial attitudes and skills is strategic for
countries aiming to improve the economical and innovative trends in their regions while
simultaneously addressing the issue of high youth unemployment.
In Mexico, youths get involved in entrepreneurial activities at a higher rate compared to
youths from other countries (OECD, 2013). Furthermore, Mexico is recognized as one of the
more entrepreneurial countries of the world (do Paço, Ferreira, Raposo, Rodrigues, & Dinis,
2011). However, the survival rate of their companies is low and there is not enough research on
entrepreneurship education and training to develop their business skills (Morales-Diaz, 2012 &
Gajón-Gómez, Reyna-García, Armenteros-Acosta & Mijares-Villarreal, 2014).
Page 126
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Both institutions and entrepreneurs are debating whether entrepreneurship skills are
teachable or not. Wu and Jung (2008) found that entrepreneurs realize the benefits of training
programs once they participate in.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of training (coached, n = 26, laissez-
faire, n = 66), in Employability Skills of Emerging Adult (18-25 years, n = 44) and Young Adult
(26-35 years, n = 48) Mexican Entrepreneurs.
Definitions of Terms
Youth: for the purpose of this study, a youth is defined as a person between 18 and 35
years old. Participants were divided in two groups: 1) emerging adulthoods, ages 18-25 and 2)
young adults, ages 26-35.
Employability skills: are the proficiencies developed by an individual's long-term
capacity to build a career and to prosper in a labor market (Curtis & McKenzie, 2001 as cited in
Román-Maqueira, 2011). The employability skills this study focuses on are communication,
teamwork and organizing effectively.
Communication skills are oral, written, and nonverbal exchanges. Communication
contributes to productive and harmonious relations between employees and customers.
Teamwork skills are the skills used to work with different people in different settings that
contributed to productive working results. Organizing effectively is the ability to perform a
wanted result in an effective and efficient manner.
Entrepreneurial Training Program
Coached Method: the coached group received training that consisted of accessing a
mentor, financial assistance and technical support for the project through a youth
entrepreneurship organization.
Laissez-faire Method: the laissez-faire group received only information that they
requested through a youth entrepreneurship information network.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Youth is characterized differently depending on the discipline and context. The typical
definition of a youth is often expressed chronologically; however even within the chronological
framework, the actual age limit varies. The United Nations' World Program of Action for Youth
(2010) defined youth as people aged 15-24, while the African Youth Charter defined youths as
“every person between the ages of 15 and 35 years”. An additional characterization is an
individual’s lifestyle and behaviors. Viacom Brand Solutions International (VBSI) conducted a
study to explore the concept of the extension of youth and to understand the behavior of 25-34
year olds around the world. The study included Mexico, Argentina, Australia/NZ, Brazil, China,
Denmark, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Holland, Poland, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, UK and
USA. VBSI found that youths that are ages 25-34 years old considers themselves as “youth”. As
a result of this perception, they prolong their engagement and participation in youth culture
Page 127
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
(Brand Solutions Asia Pacific, 2008). It is becoming more acceptable for older people to
participate in youthful pursuits. People worldwide delay the onset of adult responsibilities and
stay emotionally and physically younger for longer.
This trend to prolong youth was also identified by The International Labor Office (ILO)
(2006). They considered the fact that more and more young people postponed their entry into the
labor markets well beyond the age of 25. There seems to be a shift in the characterization of
youths in Mexico and around the world. With this new characterizations researchers must
determine if it is appropriate to extend the parameters of youth to those older than 25 or create a
new subgroup that captures any differences in attitudes, expectations or responsiveness to
services provided to the youths.
Young people who start new enterprises are creating jobs for themselves and reaching
their personal goals. However, lack of experience and resources mean that a high percentage of
these efforts fail during the first few months of operation. To reduce the failure of youth
enterprises and address critical issues during the startup process, the public and private sectors
are increasing their efforts to support young people by providing training, technical assistance
and small credits (Llisterri, Kantis, Angelelli, & Tejerina, 2006).
In Mexico, the Federal Government works through the Instituto Nacional del
Emprendedor (INADEM, Entrepreneurship National Institute) to identify and support the
specific needs for each Mexican state (Ortega-Martínez, Cano-López de Nava, Salcido-Martínez,
Villarreal-Solís, & Villarreal-Solís, 2014). This support is critical for the identification and
preparation of Mexican entrepreneurs and small businesses. In 2007, there were 913,475
registered companies in Mexico. For each 100 companies, 5.8 were created and 2.8 failed
(Morales-Díaz, 2012). The sustainability of companies in Mexico is a critical issue for the
Mexican Government. While data shows that more companies are created than are failing, it is
important to understand that the failure rate for these new businesses is very high. Morales-Díaz
(2012) cited a study conducted by Headd (2003) that found that 66% of the companies in Mexico
survived only two years.
Cognizant of this crisis in the country, traditional and nontraditional institutions are
debating whether entrepreneurship skills are teachable or not. Authors defend that
entrepreneurship education should be part of all formal educational system because
entrepreneurship education can develop skills associated to entrepreneurship success, and that
entrepreneurs will need in the future (do Paço et al., 2011). Some entrepreneurs prefer to rely
more on themselves, but once they discover training programs, new horizons emerge in their
lives and they find teachable skills (Wu & Jung, 2008). Some entrepreneurs participating in
training programs find positive results. Participants that complete a training program gain a
better insight in marketing, finance, accounting, and business knowledge. Also training programs
increase skills such as self-confidence and networking skills (Bauer, 2011).
Entrepreneurship training programs achieve positive results in participants, but the
program itself will not assure success. The entrepreneur’s personality and his social environment,
along with participating in a training program, settle a higher chance to succeed (Uribe, De
Pablo, & Bonilla, 2013). Without denying training programs’ positive effect on entrepreneurs,
the programs do not always have the wanted impact. In a study involving women entrepreneurs,
one-third of the participants felt less or no effectiveness with the training program they took
(Nagesh & Murthy, 2008).
The culture constrains or facilitates the entrepreneurial activity, however the
entrepreneurs need to seek out and obtain training in order to sustain their business (Baughn &
Page 128
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Neupert, 2003). The human being grows and gains experience constantly. When an entrepreneur
has the personal, familiar, social, technical and environmental opportunities for an
entrepreneurial project, training becomes a trigger. Training provides continuous improvement
and development for entrepreneurship attitude and aptitude for success, connecting with values,
innovation and self-reflection (Elmuti, Khoury, & Omran, 2012).
The motivations of the entrepreneurs in their everyday social behavior influence their
entrepreneurial performance. The sensed difficulty to become an entrepreneur and the subjective
community rules and social pressure from the entrepreneur’s family to become an entrepreneur
are some examples (Montiel-Méndez, Márquez-Miramontes, Arámbula-Monreal, & Ordoñez-
Molinar, 2012). Other examples of influences are: 1) Personal abilities (self-control, discipline,
risk-taker, change oriented, and innovative attitude); 2) Personal and family environment; 3)
Educational, business and social background; 4) Communication and personal interrelation
abilities; 5) Business management and organizational skills (Moreno-Zacarías & Espíritu-Olmos,
2010).
In addition to individual attributes, the society also plays a role in the success or failure
of an entrepreneurial venture. Take for instance the relationships between universities and
industry. These institutions are critical components to successfully transfer knowledge
(Sherwood, Robinson, & Butts, 2011). The university transfers the research to the companies and
the companies transfer the experience and knowledge of the practical wisdom for increasing the
market and financial value to the university research. One key challenge for universities and
industries is to find the way to communicate effectively (Sherwood, Robinson, & Butts, 2011).
Entrepreneurship can be seen as a special form of employability. In Mexico, youths get
involved in entrepreneurship activities at a higher rate compared with other countries of the
OECD. Approximately 10% of youth, below 25 years old, are self-employed, similar to youths
from Italy, Greece, South Africa, and Slovak Republic. Overall, the percentage of youths
involved in entrepreneurial activities from other countries of the OECD is lower (OECD, 2013).
When academic institutions promote employability skills development, they are also
promoting entrepreneurship (Moreland, 2006). Employability skills are essential for students
finishing college to get recruitment in the competitive world. Students who just graduated from
college are low in soft skills during time of induction in a company. However, the impact of
conducting training on soft skills once the graduate starts in a company improves the
effectiveness of soft skills in job performance (Sahni, 2011).
Employability skills development is a duty of the university. A good academic institution
is concerned with the employability problem and should seek to integrate this issue into the
curriculum design (Parvu, Ipate, & Mitran, 2014). Employers can increase their stake in
employability skills development by working in partnership with universities on the core skills
they expect (Maxwell, Scott, Macfarlane, & Williamson, 2009). According to Maxwell et al.
(2009), the main competence among employers was communication skills, and problem solving.
Parvu, Ipate, and Mitran (2014) added that assuming responsibilities, team-working skills, and
disposition to steady effort are also important skills to learn. When students take part in formal
work experience and employers are involved in curriculum design, there is a positive effect on
the ability of graduates to secure employment (Mason, Williams, & Cranmer, 2009).
In Mexico, there is a lack of scholarly research on improving entrepreneurial skills.
Research on entrepreneurship usually focuses on women entrepreneurs or innovation, but not on
entrepreneurship development, education or training. A bibliometric analysis was made utilizing
the main scientific journals to assess how to develop, train and educate potential entrepreneurs.
Page 129
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
However, from a database of 10,000 publications, only 100 were publications related to the
innovation education and entrepreneurship development in Mexico (Gajón-Gómez, Reyna-
García, Armenteros-Acosta, & Mijares-Villarreal, 2014).
METHODS
This study is part of a larger study conducted by Román-Maqueira (2011), entitled:
“Latin American youth entrepreneurs: differences between coached and laissez-faire
entrepreneurial experiences in their employability skills and their entrepreneurial innovative
attitude”. The Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research at
Dowling College granted approval for the study. Additional approval was obtained, for the
coached group, from the International Youth Organization office headquarters in Arlington,
Virginia and the local offices in Latin America. Approval for the laissez-faire group was obtained
from the International Youth Organization office headquarters in Washington, DC. Respondents’
confidentiality was maintained and results of the study were provided with aggregated data. No
respondent identifiers were gathered at any time. The personal information requested from
respondents included age, gender, and country and city of residence. Román- Maqueira received
627 responses, of which she used 317 after eliminating the individuals who were not in the age
range.
For the purpose of this study, the data for youth entrepreneurs from Mexico was used to
analyze three main research questions. The research questions were:
Do the means of communication, teamwork and organizing effectively differ for
emerging adults and young adult?
Do the means of communication, teamwork and organizing effectively differ for coached
and laissez-faire training programs?
Do the differences in the means of communication, teamwork and organizing effectively
between the two training programs vary as a function of age group?
Data for this study were pulled from Román-Maqueira’s sample of 317 Latin American
youths. One hundred and twenty responses were from Mexican entrepreneurs. This study used
92 of the 120 responses, after removing 24 responses with missing data, two respondents
younger than 18, and two respondents older than 35.
All participants completed an online survey after participating in at least one year of
entrepreneurial activity. Content validity was done on the survey responses by a panel of five
jurors of bilingual speakers. Bilingual speakers were chosen because the survey was
administered in Spanish and later translated to English. A factor analysis was also conducted on
the items and resulted in the elimination of some survey items. The remaining items had a factor
loading of .494 or higher. Alpha coefficients for the survey items showed high reliability (range
84.3% - 92.5%).
Employability skills, the focus of this research, were measured by 3 dimensions (22
items) on the survey: communication (5 items), teamwork (6 items) and organizing effectively
(11 items). The items were rated on a 10-point scale where 1 tells strongly disagree (SD) with the
statement and a 10 means strongly agree with the statement (Román-Maqueira, 2011). To see the
entire survey, Román-Maqueira (2011), page 193.
A 2 X 2 ANOVA compared the mean ratings of the dimensions of communication,
teamwork and organizing effectively, within two age groups of youth entrepreneurs (emerging
adults and young adults) and two training methods (coached and laissez-faire). This is a factorial
Page 130
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Source
Corrected Model
SS
146.30
a
Df
3
MS
48.77
F
3.19
p
.03
Intercept 87302.86 1 87302.86 5707.72 .00
Age 98.86 1 98.86 6.46 .01
Program 9.66 1 9.66 .63 .43
Age*Program 94.77 1 94.77 6.20 .01
Error 1208.35 79 15.30
Total 104364.00 83
Corrected Total 1354.65 82
design with two independents variables (age group and training method). The dependent
variables would be communication, teamwork and organizing effectively.
RESULTS
A 2 X 2 ANOVA evaluated the effects of age group and type of training program on
communication skills. The means and standard deviations for communication skills as a function
of the two factors are presented in Table 1. The ANOVA (Table 2) showed significant
interaction between emerging adults and young adults and type of training program, F(1, 79) =
6.20, p = .01, partial ?
2
= .07. There was no significant difference for the type of training
program, F(1, 79) = 0.63, p = .43, partial ?
2
= .01, but significant main effects for emerging
adults and young adults, F(1, 79) = 6.46, p = .01, partial ?
2
= .08. The main effect for the age
group showed that young adults tended to have higher communication skills than emerging
adults.
Table 1
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR COMMUNICATION SKILLS
Age group Training Program M SD
18-25 Coached 32.33 3.65
Laissez-Faire 35.38 4.64
26-35 Coached 37.00 3.88
Laissez-Faire 35.43 3.12
Total Coached 34.85 4.40
Laissez-Faire 35.40 3.93
Table 2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR COMMUNICATION SKILLS
2
.11
.99
.08
.01
.07
a. R Squared = .108 (Adjusted R Squared = .074)
A 2 X 2 ANOVA evaluated the effects of age group and type of training program on
teamwork skills. The means and standard deviations for teamwork skills as a function of the two
factors are presented in Table 3. The ANOVA (Table 4) showed significant interaction between
emerging adults and young adults and type of training program, F(1, 78) = 4.88, p = .03, partial
?
2
= .06. There was no significant difference for the type of training program, F(1, 78) = 0.10, p
= .75, partial ?
2
= .00, and no significant main effects for emerging adults and young adults, F(1,
78) = 1.13, p = .29, partial ?
2
= .01. The main effect for the age group showed that young adults
tended to have similar teamwork skills as emerging adults.
Page 131
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 3
Source
Corrected Model
SS
143.31
a
Df
3
MS
47.77
F
1.65
p
.18
Intercept 201789.73 1 201789.73 6958.05 .00
Age 32.92 1 32.92 1.13 .29
Program 3.02 1 3.02 .10 .75
Age*Program 141.67 1 141.67 4.88 .03
Error 2262.07 78 29.00
Total 244225.00 82
Corrected Total 2405.38 81
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR TEAMWORK SKILLS
Age group Training Program M SD
18-25 Coached 51.82 4.89
Laissez-Faire 55.11 5.08
26-35 Coached 56.07 4.36
Laissez-Faire 53.62 6.21
Total Coached 54.20 4.99
Laissez-Faire 54.35 5.68
Table 4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TEAMWORK SKILLS
2
.06
.99
.01
.00
.06
a. R Squared = .060 (Adjusted R Squared = .023)
A 2 X 2 ANOVA evaluated the effects of age group and type of training program on
organizing effectively. The means and standard deviations for organizing effectively as a
function of the two factors are presented in Table 5. The ANOVA (Table 6) showed no
significant interaction between emerging adults and young adults and type of training program,
F(1, 72) = 1.88, p = .17, partial ?
2
= .02. There was no significant difference for type of training
program, F(1, 72) = 0.00, p = .96, partial ?
2
= .00, but significant main effects for emerging
adults and young adults, F(1, 72) = 5.28, p = .02, partial ?
2
= .07. The main effect for the age
group showed that young adults tended to have higher organizing effectively skills than
emerging adults. Please note that large standard deviation on Table 5 of the Laissez-Faire 18-25
group, may lead to Error type II. However, p=.96 showed no significance among the program.
Table 5
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ORGANIZING EFFECTIVELY
Age group Training Program M SD
18-25 Coached 94.20 7.10
Laissez-Faire 97.31 11.49
26-35 Coached 102.86 8.76
Laissez-Faire 99.50 8.26
Total Coached 99.25 9.06
Laissez-Faire 98.40 9.97
Page 132
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 6
Source
Corrected Model
SS
511.42
a
Df
3
MS
170.47
F
1.90
p
.14
Intercept 624636.52 1 624636.52 6964.75 .00
Age 473.97 1 473.97 5.28 .02
Program .25 1 .25 .00 .96
Age*Program 168.29 1 168.29 1.88 .17
Error 6457.35 72 89.68
Total 746903.00 76
Corrected Total 6968.78 75
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ORGANIZING EFFECTIVELY SKILLS
2
.07
.99
.07
.00
.02
a. R Squared = .073 (Adjusted R Squared = .035)
SCHOLARLY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Organizations and educational institutions should be mindful of the program design and
targeted age group when investing in entrepreneurial training. Specifically, it is imperative that
they consider alternate methods of preparing entrepreneurs younger than 25 years old. The
current trend according to Schawbel (2014), is that high school students (61%) and college
students (43%) would rather be an entrepreneur instead of an employee when they graduate
college. Organizations should appropriately train youths for their desired careers and professions
goals.
After evaluating the results of the study, the recommendation for future research should
be to repeat the study with a larger sample size for each group under observation. Another
recommendation is to have an external rater evaluate the entrepreneurs’ employability skills in
addition to their self-evaluation. This would result in a more rounded appraisal of the impact of
training and would capture any personal biases and blind spots of the trainee.
For Mexico, there is a need to research different models focused in specific areas as
stated by the bibliometric analysis conducted by Gajón-Gómez et al. (2014). It is important to
understand how to improve the government-universities-companies formula to promote the
development of new entrepreneurs that create new job positions, and become a strategic impulse
for the Mexican micro and macro economy. There may not have been a need in the past,
however now that the interest in entrepreneurship is rising, it is imperative for us to have
researched based policies and practices to support this change.
CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the results of the present study, the findings support that some
employability skills are teachable to entrepreneurs as stated in studies presented in the theoretical
framework (Bauer, 2011; Wu & Jung, 2008). Communication skill is one of the most influential
employability skills for employers (Maxwell et al., 2009 and Parvu et al., 2014). The success of
an employability skills program can be determined by the effectiveness of the program in
improving communication skills. The finding for the present study illustrate that, of the three
dimensions of employability skills evaluated, communication skills had the greatest probability
for improving. Communication skills increased with age alone and with the interaction of age
and type of training.
Teamwork is also an important employability skill expected by employers (Parvu et al.
2014). In the study, this skill did not improve with the age or participation in the type of training
Page 133
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
program, instead teamwork skills increased only with the interaction of age and type of the
training.
The results gained with this study also provide new information about the role of age in
training employability skills. Young adults (ages 26-35) reported higher levels of communication
and organizing effectively skills regardless of participation in the coached or laissez-faire
training program. An additional finding related to age is that young adults (age 26-35) in the
coached entrepreneurial program reported a more positive increase in employability skills
compared with the young adults in the laissez faire program and compared to emerging adults
(age 18-25) from both training programs.
Improving employability skills is beneficial to entrepreneurship activities in Mexico.
Sixty six percent of companies survive only the first two years (Headd, 2003 as cited in Morales-
Díaz, 2012). A high rate of youths in Mexico participate in entrepreneurship activities (OECD,
2013). Therefore, it is important to develop employability skills to help the sustainability of
Mexican youth companies.
A surprising finding was that there was no significant difference between the two types
of training programs. The entrepreneurs in the coached program reported similar increase on
employability skills as those in the laissez-faire program. Training programs are essential to an
entrepreneur’s success; however, not all programs are successful. Other factors such as
personality and social environment, in addition to the training program yield a higher chance of
success (Uribe et al., 2013). One-third of the women that participated in a study about
entrepreneurs, felt less or no effectiveness with the training program they took (Nagesh &
Murthy, 2008).
REFERENCES
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development From the Late Teens Through the Twenties.
American Psychologist, 469-480.
Bauer, K. (2011). Training Women for Success: an Evaluation of Entrepreneurship Training Programs in Vermont,
USA. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1-24.
Baughn, C. C., & Neupert, K. E. (2003). Culture and National Conditions Facilitating Entrepreneurial Start -ups.
Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 313-330.
Brand Solutions Asia Pacific. (2008). The Golden Age of Youth. Retrieved from Viacom:http://www.viacomasia.com/golderageofyouth08.html
do Paço, A. F., Ferreira, J. M., Raposo, M., Rodrigues, R. G., & Dinis, A. (2011). Behaviours and Entrepreneural
Intention: Empirical Findings About Secondary Students. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 20-
38.
Elmuti, D., Khoury, G., & Omran, O. (2012). Does Entrepreneurship Education Have A Role In Developing
Entrepreneurial Skills And Ventures' Effectiveness? Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 83-98.
Gajón-Gómez, E., Reyna-García, G. M., Armenteros-Acosta, M. d., & Mijares-Villarreal, M. (2014). Innovando La
Educación En México: Factores Internos Que Impactan Al Emprendimiento Universitario. Global
Conference on Business and Finance (pp. 687-693). San José, Costa Rica: The Institute for Business and
Finance Research.
Kumar, R., & Kelly, L. (2005). Self-Efficacy, Social and Cultural Issues in Designing Online Technology Skills
Transfer Programs: A Mexican Context. Journal of Information Science and Technology, 72-92.
Llisterri, J. J., Kantis, H., Angelelli, P., & Tejerina, L. (2006). Is Youth Entrepreneurship a Necessity or an
Opportunity? Inter-American Development Bank, 1-18.
Page 134
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Mason, G., Williams, G., & Cranmer, S. (2009). Employability Skills Initiatives in Higher Education: What Effects
Do They Have on Graduate Labour Market Outcomes? Education Economics, 1-30.
Maxwell, G., Scott, B., Macfarlane, D., & Williamson, E. (2009). Employers as Stakeholders in Postgraduate
Employability Skills Development. Journal of Management Education, 1-11.
Montiel-Méndez, O. J., Márquez-Miramontes, B. L., Arámbula-Monreal, Z., & Ordoñez-Molinar, L. (2012).
Intención De Emprendimiento En Estudiantes: El Caso De Una Universidad Pública En Ciudad Juárez,
México. Global Conference on Business and Finance (pp. 1231-1243). Honolulu: The Institute for
Business and Finance Research.
Morales-Díaz, R. R. (2012). Demografía de Negocios en México. Estudios Demográficos y Urbanos, p. 201'225.
Moreland, N. (2006). Entrepreneurship and Higher Education: An Employability Perspective. Higher Education
Academy.
Moreno-Zacarías, H. M., & Espíritu-Olmos, R. (2010, July-December). Análisis De Las Características del
Emprendimiento y Liderazgo En Los Países De Asia y Latinoamérica. Portes: Revista Mexicana de
Estudios Sobre la Cuenca del Pacífico, pp. 101-122.
Nagesh, P., & Murthy, M. N. (2008). The Effectiveness of Women Entrepreneurship Training Program: A Case
Study. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 23-40.
OECD. (2013, July). Self-Employment Among the Youth and Seniors. Retrieved from OECD iLibrary:http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/entrepreneur_aag-2013-21-en
Ortega-Martínez, R. M., Cano-López de Nava, C. B., Salcido-Martínez, C. N., Villarreal-Solís, M. D., & Villarreal-
Solís, F. (2014). El Emprendimiento Desde Una Institución De Educación Superior en México. Global
Conference on Business and Finance (pp. 1523-1537). San José, Costa Rica: The Institute for Business and
Finance Research.
Parvu, I., Ipate, D. M., & Mitran, P. C. (2014). Identification of Employability Skills - Starting Point for the
Curriculum Design Process. Addleton Academic Publishers, 237-246.
Raposo, M., & do Paço, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Relationship Between Education and
Entrepreneurial Activity. Psicothema, 453-457.
Román-Maqueira, J. (2011). Latin American Youth Entrepreneurs: Differences Between Coached And Laissez-Faire
Entrepreneurial Experiences In Their Employabiity Skills And Their Entrepreneurial Innovative Attitude.
Oakdale, NY: UMI Dissertation Publishing.
Sahni, L. (2011). The Impact of Soft Skill Training Induction Programme on New Entrants. BVIMR Management
Edge, 40-47.
Schawbel, D. (2014, April 22). Mellenial Branding. Retrieved from Mellenial Branding:http://millennialbranding/2014/02/high-school-careers-study/
Sherwood, A. L., Robinson, D. F., & Butts, S. B. (2011). Four Stages to More Successful Knowledge Transfer
Between Universities and Industry Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial Executive, 9-23.
Uribe, J., De Pablo, J., & Bonilla, J. J. (2013). Business and Local Development: Training as a Basic Factor to
Guide the Entrepreneur. Intangible Capital, 644-677.
Wu, S., & Jung, Y. J. (2008). Is Non-Traditional Entrepreneurship Training Helpful to Nascent Entrepreneurs? Yes
and No. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 43-51.
Page 135
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAINERS – THE
COMPETENCE MIX IN ACTION-ORIENTED
ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Øystein Rennemo, Nord-Trøndelag University College
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates contextual factors in entrepreneurship training and education
as well as the connection to discussions in recent research. It concentrates on the relation
between entrepreneurship education and the role of the trainers. These topics are investigated
in the framework of an Action Research program in order to evaluate the effects of action- or
activity-oriented programs in entrepreneurship training and education. The empirical
background of the paper is a 2.5 year research and development program (Women & Growth)
that involved 24 growth-oriented women entrepreneurs and involved 10 trainers/researchers
from four research institutions in central regions of Sweden and Norway. The findings indicate
1) that action-oriented programs seem to be suitable as a program design to develop necessary
competencies among entrepreneurs and help them expand their business. Another finding is
the 2) necessity of involving a variety of competencies among the trainers/researchers.
Additionally, 3) it was found to be necessary to include the learning network among the
entrepreneurs as an important part of the knowledge reservoir needed for the entrepreneurs to
draw on when assisting their businesses to grow. Finally, 4) the paper shows how regional
collaboration among different research institutions enables the group of trainers/researchers
to benefit from the strengths and competencies found only in some of the locations.
INTRODUCTION
Despite the prioritization of entrepreneurship training and education in the last two
decades and the explosion of entrepreneurship programs in business schools (Page West III,
Gatewood & Shaver 2009), there is still little knowledge about the learning process that equips
entrepreneurs with best possible mind-sets and skills (Gstraunthaler & Hendry 2011).
Entrepreneurship is about heterogeneity which needs to be taken into account in entrepreneurial
education and training. As Fayolle (2010) argues, we can learn more from the differences than
the similarities and there is no single magic factor or simple recipe in entrepreneurship
education, only factors that are more or less suitable in relation to contextual matters such as
personal, interpersonal, networking, company, institutional and cultural factors. In addition, we
should add contextual factors about the training and educational settings as well. Searching for
simple solutions when designing entrepreneurship education is recognized to have a limited
effect and will seldom develop the necessary competencies such as creativity, opportunity
recognition and problem-solving ability (Lautenschläger & Haase 2011).
A development trend in entrepreneurship education seems to be the move away from
academic pedagogical methods towards activity and action learning oriented programs. Several
contributors have argued that entrepreneurship is best learned by the actions of the entrepreneur
himself/herself in an atmosphere of trust that allows experimentation and reflection both in and
on action (Mc Mullan & Lung 1987, Hills 1988, Åsvoll & Jacobsen 2012). The paper is based
on research in line with these recommendations since the knowledge generated comes from an
entrepreneurship development project, already in the project description Women and Growth
had selected Action Research (AR) as an overall methodological orientation.
Page 136
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
This paper will concentrate on the relationship between entrepreneurship education and
the role of the trainers and it will examine which competencies are preferable when working
with entrepreneurship education and development in an action- activity-oriented
entrepreneurship development program, such as Action Research programs or Action Learning
programs. The paper accepts a wide-ranging definition of the educator role, arguing that the
whole learning community is included in the definition. Thus, the research question that will
be pursued are: Which competencies are preferable in development programs when supporting
women entrepreneurs who want their businesses to grow.
The empirical background of the paper is a 2.5 year research and development program
(Kvinner & Vekst, Women & Growth) that involved 24 growth-oriented women entrepreneurs
in central regions of Sweden and Norway. It was funded by INTERREG which is an EU
program. The development program ended in spring 2013 and was evaluated as a success by
participants, research institutions and by the funder (Von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013). Even
though the data collected for this study come from a program for women entrepreneurs, the
findings are not discussed with reference to a gender aspect. On the contrary, the assumption is
that state-of-the-art entrepreneurship education is considered gender independent. Female
entrepreneurs are very much like male entrepreneurs and it is more meaningful to speak about
within-sex differences than between-sex differences. (Ahl 2002, Nelson & Duffy 2010).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Women & Growth was a research and development program that committed the 24
women entrepreneurs who participated to develop their businesses within the framework of an
Action Research design. The goals of the whole project were partly to develop and allow
ongoing businesses to grow and partly do research and develop new knowledge about women
entrepreneurship (von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013). The term Action Research contains a
variety of traditions and design principles (Reason & Bradbury 2008, Brydon-Miller,
Greenwood & Maguire 2003, Dick 2006). The term is also close to action-oriented concepts,
such as Action Learning (Revans 1977), Action Science (Argyris, Putnam & Smith 1985), Co-
operative Inquiry (Heron 1996), Action Inquiry (Torbert 2004) and Action Based Development
(Rennemo 2006). Together these traditions are regarded to have considerable impact on practice
oriented research and development work (Minzberg 2004). What they have in common and
thus uniting these different traditions is placing emphasis on and trying to balance the following
three elements: action (in order to change a situation to something better), participation (in a
way that involves people that are affected by the situation), and research (in order to generate
new knowledge that is useful for others outside the participating group (Greenwood & Levin
2007). Even though Action Research was chosen as a methodological orientation in Women &
Growth, the orientation of the program was quite flexible and took advantage of different
action-oriented traditions (von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013).
The reason for choosing an AR-oriented approach in the Women & Growth
entrepreneurship development program was assumptions in the project management ahead of
start-up that such an approach would be the best way to promote growth among the businesses
of the entrepreneurs. These assumptions are anchored in entrepreneurship education programs
arguing that entrepreneurship can be learned and facilitated but not taught as well as in general
action research oriented literature (Argyris et al. 1985, Lave & Wenger 1990, Daly 2001, Birch
2004, Pittaway & Cope 2007).
It is argued that entrepreneurship has a holistic nature (Page West III, Gatewood &
Shaver 2009), meaning that there are a wide variety of competencies needed for the
entrepreneur to handle all upcoming challenges. In action-oriented literature we find this need
Page 137
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
met by a holistic recommendation (Gummesson 2000) and operationally we find the needs met
since the content (the task for improvement), the process (the way of improvement) and the
premises (fundamental assumptions behind thinking and action) are challenged (Coghlan &
Brannick 2010). Besides this there is a need for numerous reflections about the individual, the
team and the organizational levels (Ibid.). In such an approach, flexibility and adaption to the
situation are needed depending on the variable and quite unpredictable needs from the
entrepreneurs involved. This is also helpful in order to meet another demand in entrepreneurship
education: It is argued that there are two recent trends, one to narrow the scope and deliver
specialized educational demands, the other is to widen the scope and present the entrepreneur
with a learning environment that challenges mainstream thinking, presenting new and unusual
perspectives that are holistically oriented (Kuckertz 2013). One advantage of an action-oriented
design is the possibility, or more correctly the necessity, to combine both narrowing and
widening, due to the holistic orientation.
According to central principles from the action-oriented tradition, the questions and
tasks that are aimed toward improvement are participant driven (Greenwood & Levin 2007), in
this case by the entrepreneurs themselves. This has relevance to an important matter in
entrepreneurship training and education, namely who makes decision about teaching priorities.
In classroom and business school education, the topics are predetermined before the learning
processes starts and are usually described in curriculums (Nelson & Duffy 2010). In the action-
oriented tradition, the topics are participant driven.
In the paper, the concept “knowledge reservoirs” is used to describe the total knowledge
network that was available for the women entrepreneurs in the development program. The
concept, rooted in Resource Based Theory (RBT) is based on how managers build and acquire
knowledge (McGrath and Argote 2000, Widding 2005) by drawing on the available reservoir
of knowledge in order to exploit opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman 2000, Sarasvathy
2008). The “knowing” is a dynamic process by which the acquired knowledge is constantly
being built, tested, and reconstructed (Sveiby 1997, Choo 1998). Quite early in the Women &
Growth program, it became clear that sharing of knowledge and experience among the
entrepreneurs was an important part of the knowledge reservoir. Moreover, according to
Nonaka (1994), knowledge consists of both tacit and explicit elements. Given that
entrepreneurial firms are primarily based on entrepreneurs’ knowledge, firms’ knowledge
reservoirs largely consist of personal tacit knowledge.
METHOD
The paper is based on an AR design, where 10 researchers/trainers/coaches from four
research institutions in the central Scandinavian region were interacting with 24 Swedish and
Norwegian women entrepreneurs in a 2.5 year development program. The 24 women
entrepreneurs had all committed themselves to growth, although the term growth itself was not
predefined. They owned their own companies (more than 50%), had their company as their
main income source and the company had existed for more than 3 years. Their businesses were
related to three business sectors: health/nursing/welfare work, tourism/creative work and
business service/immaterial work (Von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013). Apart from this the group
was rather heterogeneous with regard to characteristics like geography, age, business
experience and education. The heterogeneity was intended when recruiting the women to the
program and was presented as advantageous for the sharing of experience and for the learning
community. When the women met at the first workshop in January 2011, they were organized
in four network groups and the principles of heterogeneity followed the organization of these
groups as well. The effects and implications of this will be discussed later in the paper.
Page 138
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The design of the program is also an answer to the claim that a lack of longitudinal
studies in the field of entrepreneurship research is a major methodological drawback regarding
accumulation of theory (Sexton 1997, Chandler and Lyon 2001, Davidsson et al. 2001). Most
research in entrepreneurship education is based upon university student programs and differs
from the context in this paper. Knowledge developed from action-oriented research holds a
more marginalized position which underlines the importance of this type of study. As Page
West III, Gatewood & Shaver (2009) and Fayolle (2010) emphasize it is important to study less
focused research areas and topics. Since entrepreneurial thinking and skills to a large extent are
unfolding outside academia, it is important to broaden entrepreneurship training and education
beyond the university and business school environments.
We have underlined the holistic nature of action-oriented training programs. In Women
and Growth, this theoretical driven position created expectations about the learning situation.
We expected that this would help the 24 entrepreneurs to be able to work with different
challenges depending on their actual situation in the growth process. It was expected sometimes
that there was a need to focus on specific business tasks while in other situations their challenges
were expected to be on a more personal level. Sometimes the expectations were needs to be
challenged creatively to be able to learn something “new”, while at other times their anticipated
focus was on making and following up plans and activities. Silberzahn & Silberzahn (2010)
make some proposals about entrepreneur education among them the suggestion that
entrepreneurs will benefit from education in a wide range of subjects. The learning network that
was available for the entrepreneurs in the development program consisted of people with a
variety of competencies. The trainers, the project staff, from the four research institutions
represented different academic disciplines and had special competencies in different fields of
entrepreneurial activity. Table 1 indicates various competencies that were represented by the
ten people from the research institutions. The advantage of the competence mix indicated in the
table was expected ahead of the program and therefore a factor that influenced the composition
of the researchers/trainers being involved in the program. According to the holistic nature of
this type of programs, it was expected that it would be necessary to have people with expert
competence on different entrepreneurship topics, people that also had research experience and
competence on these topics. Besides, it was expected that it would be valuable to have various
forms of process consultancy competencies. These are the two main competence categories in
the table. In the right-hand column different fields of expertise within each main category are
mentioned. We had at least, two people with significant competence in each field of expertise.
Table 1
COMPETENCIES IN THE PROJECT STAFF
Main competence categories Fields of expertise
Research competencies - Entrepreneurship and growth. Regional development
- Women entrepreneurship.
- Financing and social capital
- Commercialization and marketing
- Perspectives of network – networking.
- Innovation and creativity
Leadership and management theory
- Knowledge management. Organizational learning.
Process consultancy
competencies
- Action Research/Action Learning-methodology.
- Individual and team coaching (certificated or well documented
experiences).
- Leadership/personal tests (certificated).
- Business development consultancy (also women businesses).
- Leadership development consultancy
- Train the trainer’s consultancy.
Page 139
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Four of the researchers/trainers (two from each country) formed the project leadership
team, also representing the link to the financer (INTERREG), one of these was the daily
manager of the development program. Additionally one member was recruited to have special
responsibility for learning processes in the development program as well as ongoing learning
and training among the whole team of researchers/trainers. Except this person, all of them were
allocated as resources to the network groups, two from each country. The effect of the
competence mix among the researchers/trainers will be discussed later on.
The action-oriented tradition emphasizes principles like working with real-life issues,
knowledge sharing and the necessity to develop a spirit of openness, trust and democracy
(Gummesson 2000). These principles were highlighted in Women & Growth as well. In the
first workshop extra time and focus was placed on discussing who the researchers in the
program were. A theoretical driven position from AR literature gives this label to all
participants both project staff and entrepreneurs, since all have responsibility for production of
data, knowledge sharing and knowledge building (Greenwood & Levin 2007, Coghlan &
Brannick 2010). When the expression “we are all researchers” was introduced by the project
staff as a collective oriented concepts, some confusion arose, but quite fast the concept was
embraced by the entrepreneurs and gave energy to the process. This will be discussed below.
An interesting episode happened though during the evening dinner on the same day. Some of
the entrepreneurs suggested the necessity to change the titles of the project staff. Up to this time
the name researcher and coach had been used as well. Now, they suggested the use of the name
PROST (PROject STaff, the same abbreviation in Norwegian/Swedish). This was accepted by
the whole group and consequently used later on until the program ended.
Another topic that was discussed at the same (first) workshop was the clarifications of
different goals pursued in the program. In this discussion it became obvious that the foregoing
role clarification was helpful. After some plenary reflections one member from the PROST
group summarized the discussion by depicting a drawing that is presented below (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Different goals in the Women & Growth program
The figure was helpful as it shows how different types of goals could be established and
pursued through the program as long as they were in accordance with fundamental and accepted
AR thinking, as presented above. There was full openness in the whole group about the different
goals, besides the obligations to help each other reach them. The figure presents the three
different types of goals: First of all, individual growth oriented goals set by the 24
entrepreneurs. Second, we had research goals pursued by the PROST group (the group of
“professional” researchers) and finally, we established common goals including both
entrepreneurs and PROST. The most important of these was the decision to write an anthology
Page 140
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
based upon the knowledge about entrepreneurial growth developed in the program. The
anthology was published in 2013 (Von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013), the chapters were written
by the PROST group with invaluable contributions and specific data production from all the
entrepreneurs. This paper is an example of the second type of goals, members from the PROST
group pursuing their specific research interests.
Not only the setting of the goals but also the design and agenda of different workshops
and meeting were issues for participant involvement. The topics to be highlighted or trained in
were driven by the entrepreneurs’ interests. These topics were discussed as an ongoing activity
in collaboration between the entrepreneurs and the PROST group. But this was not an obvious
position for all members of the learning community. In fact, a decisive matter occurred in the
first of six workshops. After AR design and learning principles had been discussed, the
entrepreneurs were presented with a more or less fixed plan for the coming days. Some of the
entrepreneurs opposed this, and it was thus necessary to redesign the plan based on the actual
needs and information from the entrepreneurs. This caused some confusion, but became an
important learning experience for rest of the program.
Except for the first workshop, the others were planned in cooperation between PROST
and entrepreneurs. The table below illustrates central activities in the development program
from beginning to end.
Table 2
PROJECT ACTIVITIES (TRANSLATED AND COMPILED FROM VON FRIEDRICHS &
RENNEMO 2013)
Workshop (WS) Activities
Main subject in each workshop in bold font
WS 1. (3 days)
January 2011
Growth and Growth ambitions. Who we are? Program design, resources and
challenges. Network groups and network (IT) communication. Tools for reflection.
Reflections and knowledge sharing. Planning next WS. Working with business plans.
WS 2. (2.5 days)
May 2011
Networking, business network, relations. What has happened between WS 1 and 2?
Presentations and knowledge sharing. Network mapping. Reflections. Tools for
business and personal development. Business plans. Common research goal (anthology)
WS 3. (2.5 days)
November 2011
Marketing and internationalization/globalization. Status presentations (small and
large groups), coaching activities/helping each other, reflections and knowledge
sharing, tools for personal and business development, planning, reflection activities.
WS 4. ( 1 day)
February 2012
Extra WS. Not initially planned. Videoconference. 1 group in each country. Experience
and knowledge sharing. More on marketing (p/m-matrix). Coaching each other.
Working with business plans. Planning next workshop.
WS 5 (2.5 days)
May 2012
Financing, business models, boots-trapping. Status growth (presentations, coaching).
Status anthology. Tools for personal and business development (Myer Briggs).
Reflections. Working with business plans. Planning next workshop.
WS 6 (2.5 days)
January 2013
Business Conference in Åre (Sweden). Part of WS included a business conference
based upon the development project including presentations from entrepreneurs and
PROST + external speakers. 120 participants.
After the conference: Anthology presentations and discussions with entrepreneurs.
Reflections and evaluations.
Post WS
March 2013
Anthology sent to all entrepreneurs (co-authors) for checking data and receiving
permissions on the way data and entrepreneurs are presented.
Project report INTERREG
Post WS
June 2013
Anthology publishing activities. Publishing date 2013-06-01.
Release party mid-June, some entrepreneurs participated
Page 141
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The table only includes some of the most important activities. We must pay attention to
all the follow-up activities in the period between the different meetings and workshops and
even meetings and arrangement in network groups and information work and chatting on
information platform (Web-CT and Fronter) and on Facebook.
At this point we also have to clarify that the total length of the whole project was about
3.5 years and included almost a year in the preparation phase and almost a half year with closing
activities, among them reporting back to the funders. In the preparation phase the project staff
was recruited from the four research institutions and they met and prepared and planned for the
development program. One important part of the planning was the construction of and sending
a questionnaire to 5500 women entrepreneurs in mid-Sweden and mid-Norway. The response
rate was 20% in Norway and 24 % in Sweden. The following data processing gave valuable
data about the target group (women entrepreneurs) and was used as to provide a knowledge
background in the development program. Besides, the data have been valuable in research
activities for the PROST group after the program ended.
A second questionnaire, based on information from the first one, was later on sent to a
group of 206 women entrepreneurs having expressed willingness to take part in a development
program. Out of this group, the final group of 24 participants was selected. This questionnaire
provided information and knowledge that partly was fed back to the participants and partly was
used as data later on.
Other and more qualitative oriented data giving empirical documentation to this paper
are all produced in, or as a result of, activities in the Women and Growth program. The
reflections continuously given by both entrepreneurs and researchers (PROST group) during
the whole program are important. Some of these are open reflections, and therefore based upon
authors’ logs, but most of the reflections come from answers given to prepared questions at the
end of every workshop. Several of these questions were asked repeatedly through the whole
program, and some of them were about contributions from PROST members. From the
entrepreneurs, feedback to the program, opinions about help given from both PROST and
entrepreneurship colleagues and responses to the network of learning that was established are
of course important data, the same can be said for the produced documents, such as project
description, workshop agendas, presentations and reports. Additionally some secondary data
have been used; the most important being the anthology (Von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013)
that was produced by the PROST group in collaboration with the entrepreneurs. Here we find
valuable information about the program, program responses from the entrepreneurs and
documentation of the entrepreneurship knowledge developed through the program.
EMPIRICAL DISCUSSION
The ambition of this paper, as the title indicates, is to investigate the competencies and
the mix of the competencies that was useful in an action-oriented research and development
program for women entrepreneurs, a program evaluated as successful from all researchers and
entrepreneurs involved and even by the funder, INTERREG. In this section the findings are
related to empirical evidence and we will concentrate upon four main issues. The first
discussion is related to the design of the program, the effects of an action- or activity-oriented
arrangement for entrepreneurship training and education. The second discussion is related to
the group of professional researchers/trainers that was involved in the program. The third
discussion expands the concept of ‘trainer’ and discusses the effect of the whole learning
community that was involved. When describing this total learning community, we draw upon
the concept ‘knowledge reservoir’. Since the Women & Growth program not only was a
development program, but also a research program, we will finally investigate the effect the
Page 142
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
competence mix among trainers/researchers had upon the ability to deliver research results
within the field of entrepreneurship.
Action-oriented design
The development program was part of an AR project, but as mentioned, when in the
project the action label was not the most important issue and as presented in the theoretical and
methodological part we find traces of various action-oriented traditions. Hynes, O’Dwyer &
Birdthistle (2009) reflect upon differences between didactic and enterprising learning models
and recommend a transfer to the last in entrepreneurship education. Didactic models are
characterized by teaching, passive listening, learning from texts and experts, feedback from
only one key person, the environment is structured and timetabled and copying from others is
discouraged. The enterprising learning model is characterized by learning from each other,
learning by doing, learning by exchange of experience and discovery (under guidance),
feedback from many, environmental flexibility, some pressure to achieve goals, best practice
and “stealing” from others, mistakes are to be learned from and problem-based learning (Ibid.).
Together with characteristics mentioned earlier about the action-oriented approach, the
description of enterprising learning models suit the approach in Women & Growth very well.
This approach was really appreciated by the entrepreneurs, it created a lot of energy,
exemplified by some of the quoted reflections below.
-I found it interesting to hear that we all are co-researchers. – We are going to influence the process
ourselves. – This network gives so much energy. – I want to investigate in order to improve my business.
– It feels good to be part of a university environment once more. – I was surprised that communication
with this group, with people in “the same boat” was so energizing. This is something extraordinary
This orientation towards an enterprising learning model and transfer from the didactic
pedagogical situation that most of the PROST were influenced from at the beginning, was not
uncomplicated. Sometimes, we as staff were “arrested” by the entrepreneurs of having a theory
in use that was different from what we exposed.
-Sometimes, I think the cultural differences between researchers and entrepreneurs have clashed. Then
the relation between us felt more like a teacher- student relation.
Overall though, these experiences make it clear that the action and enterprising oriented
design was energizing and motivated the participating entrepreneurs. It also seems evident that
the women entrepreneurs in this program, appreciated the opportunity to take part in general
knowledge production and entrepreneurship research, i.e. the research goals they had a common
responsibility to pursue together with the PROST group (the “professional” researchers, as
shown in Figure 1. The possibility to be part of an anthology production, as co-researchers, is
frequently mentioned in their reflections as a motivating factor.
An action-oriented program is driven by participant needs and ought to be situationally
adaptive. That means the education has to be able to handle both substantial questions about
business and activity planning as well as personal, relational or emotional challenges. Several
of the entrepreneurs emphasized this quality in the Women & Growth development program.
-If I put words to my feelings, the program feels like an internal education, a rather exclusive and different
one, a possibility to develop personally as well as my business. – I work better and more structured. I feel
that I manage and I have become more open-minded and open as a person. – First time we met we created
a name for our 6 person group, “Pearls on a thread”, the pearls were the six of us. The meaning of the
pearls has changed. It is now about delight, sincerity, tools cooperation and meetings. I have an overall
understanding of what I do and what I want to do. – Before I held my presentation (last workshop)
yesterday I needed to think about the output of this program: friends, knowledge and new business. I’ve
Page 143
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
learned a lot about myself, about strengths and weaknesses. I’ve got knowledge about other business
sectors, knowledge about research and the research sector and how different logics influence our
different ways of thinking.
There has been little research in entrepreneurship education about the emotional aspects
of teaching and learning (Arpiainen, Lackeus, Täks & Tynjälä 2013). According to Kyrö (2008)
this is an area where research is needed. In Women & Growth, considerable effort was placed
on creating trust so that it became possible to express emotions as a natural part of
entrepreneurial experience. One way to encourage this was the establishment of confidentiality
contracts among the participants. In addition, a lot of effort was put into the understanding of
Argyris (1990) concepts of Model I vs. Model II behavior, where Model II-behavior is seen as
a necessity to develop in action-oriented programs (Rennemo 2006). Several times during the
program, entrepreneurs expressed strong emotions, both joy and despair, often expressed in
connection with storytelling about progress or setbacks in their business development, but also
in relation to events in their private life.
The competencies and the mix of competencies among the trainers
Silberzahn & Silberzahn (2010) make some proposals about entrepreneur education
among them the suggestion that entrepreneurs will benefit from education in a wide range of
subjects. Even though their reference is a didactic learning situation (Hynes, O’Dwyer &
Birdthistle, 2009) their recommendations are relevant for this discussion. In Women &Growth
we find a lot of teaching activities where members of the PROST group, as experts, gave lessons
upon topics demanded by the entrepreneurs. These topics are highlighted in Table 2 and the
available competencies among the PROST group are presented in Table 1. The possibilities of
offering complementary competencies and the competence mix among the group of people
(PROST) from the four different research institutions, was definitely a factor that was tried to
achieve in the composition of the group in the planning phase of the program. During and after
the program this is also a factor the group itself evaluated as criteria of success.
-There is so much knowledge and competence in this group, - an overwhelming experience, WOW!. - I
feel we have managed utilizing the complementary strengths in our group in a better way than I maybe
thought before the program started.
Even the entrepreneurs were commenting on the same in their program evaluations.
Here we have concentrated some reflections after workshop 5, just to exemplify the material.
We find very much the same comments after other workshops. First some reflections in relation
to the topics highlighted:
-The lecture that x held about competition forces was thought-provoking. -It was very useful to learn more
about financing and business models.-The lectures you gave yesterday were rather valuable for me. -I
admit that my knowledge about business models and bootstrapping was limited. I now can see that there
are some important aspects here I need to take into consideration in relation to my business plan.
Then some reflections in relation to the process and process material that was taught by
PROST:
- I take the 20 million you gave me (fictive imagination exercise) with me as an experience not to be stuck
in my own mental limitations.-The exercise we did yesterday made a great impression. I realized that I
need to look around more to see what’s going on. What and how do others do? And what can I learn from
them?. -Through the exercise I once again realized the importance of this network and how much energy
I get from it. I’m impressed by the willingness to share experience and advice. I’m proud to be part of
this team. Very competent researchers (PROST) and businesswomen.
Page 144
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Finally some general comments from the same workshop:
-I have regarded this program as an internal training, a possibility for competence development.-To be
inside the walls of the university once again, it feels great!-I am impressed by the competence within the
PROST group.-I want to give PROST a big hand!-The competencies within the PROST group are great!
-It gives such inspiration only to be together with all of you. It is gold I take with me home.
Still, it is also important to underline that this experience was not reached without time-
consuming discussions and even confusion. As mentioned above, the development program
was prepared for almost one year before the first workshop. The evaluations among the
researchers/trainers (project staff) emphasize the necessity of this period. Partly, the pilot study
(questionnaire) to 5500 women entrepreneurs in mid-Sweden/Norway was time consuming to
develop and complete. In addition, a lot of time was needed to talk through the learning and
development philosophy. As reflected by three members of the project staff.
-We needed much more time for preparation of the first workshop, than we did for the rest. – We
experienced, in the preparation phase, that we needed time to talk things through. Even though we say
the same and use the same words, the individual meaning of them might be very different – My reflection
after this first workshop is the need of continuous work with and clarification of our role as project staff.
This clarification work among the staff also helped the entrepreneurs to find their role
and understanding of the program philosophy.
-For me it became easier to participate from workshop 2 on. Then I had a better understanding of the
premises of the program and we all knew each other better.
To summarize this discussion: When studying, especially the reflections during and
after each of the workshops, no doubt there is reason to conclude that the mix of various
competencies within the PROST group was a great advantage for the training situation. This
experience is in line with other researchers’ recommendations regarding the development and
design of entrepreneurship education, but even entrepreneurship research, as it will be reflected
upon later (Janssen, Eeckhout, Gailly & Bacq 2009, Hynes, O’Dwyer & Birdthistle 2009,
Mendes & Kehoe 2009, Silberzahn & Silberzahn 2010).
Expanding the understanding of trainers as a group
Following the learning philosophy and the characteristics of enterprising learning
models (Hynes, O’Dwyer & Birdthistle 2009), the exchange of experience and learning from
others in a similar situation was a central aspect of Women & Growth. The value of this is so
overwhelming in the reflections from the entrepreneurs that it would therefore be completely
unreasonable not to declare that the understanding of the entrepreneurship trainer must include
other entrepreneurs as well.
-It was an eye-opener to me to experience and understand the value of utilizing the whole group (of
entrepreneurs) as facilitators and coaches, to discuss with this group, being helped in problem solving
and to get feedback and support. – Finally I’m not alone any more. – This will be a community for mutual
development, - I want to find the right way for me, exchange experience and give help to each other. – It
is amazing how experienced the people sitting next to me are and how important this is for my own
development. – I’m surprised about the willingness to share experience. – Most important for me is being
able to take a meta-view upon my own enterprise with the help of the others, we have so much to give
each other. I didn’t expect to feel myself as comfortable as I do, because of previous experience, together
with all these women. Common interests and goals though create a spirit of solidarity in another way
than only experiences. – I feel I have learned a lot what I might do and not do because of the network
with other entrepreneurs. – My colleagues, sharing experience and conversations with them have been
the most important support.
Page 145
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The individual value of other entrepreneurs in the development program, as part of the
learning network, is obvious, but there are also strong indications that this network will have
value in a longer perspective. Lifelong learning is a conceptual model that has influenced most
educational areas since the mid-1990s (Hagen & Skule 2008). The transfer from linear to
circular thinking where learning and knowledge creation are seen as a continuously ongoing
and lifelong activity has also reached the scene of entrepreneurship education (Fayolle & Kyrö
2008). Even though there is no reason to claim, at this stage a year and a half after the formal
closure, that the Women & Growth program and the networks created among the women
entrepreneurs, have a lifelong character, there is reason to look upon the program as a possibility
for continuous learning. According to Fayolle & Kyrö (2008) this challenges entrepreneurship
education since long-term educational offers and support cannot exclusively be directed
towards specified entrepreneurship groups and ages, more multidisciplinary programs are
needed as well as programs that cross different educational borders. Related to Women &
Growth, the heterogeneity of the group also reflected educational level, but it is important to
mention that this never was problematized as a drawback for the learning and development
process, rather the heterogeneity even with regard to this aspect is mentioned as a positive
factor. The multidisciplinary orientation was taken care of, at least to some degree, by the
recruitment of staff as presented in Table 1 and even when the entrepreneurs were recruited to
the program, as mention in the method section. The following reflections are all given by
entrepreneurs after last workshop in January 2013.
-Thinking about the network I have developed gives me pleasure. I know it will be useful in the future. –
I’ve learned that I’ve never learned enough. – Business consultancy is an ongoing process for me. But I
don’t need to do everything myself, a lot of competencies are available. – The network we have developed
needs to be taken care of. - The changing network was important for me. I broke out from my old one
that I thought I was dependent upon, but I was not. When I changed direction much more action occurred.
The program removed my blinders. I experienced the possibility of working across different professions.
It seems evident that this development program gave possibilities of continuous learning
in the network that was established. One and a half year after ending the program we know
something about continuous business relations and cooperation between the entrepreneurs, but
we do not know the dimension of this. What we have decided though, is that sales and revenues
from the anthology will be used in a follow-up meeting between all participants, entrepreneurs
and staff (PROST). This will be a good occasion to find answers to questions about long-term
effects of the program.
In the literature, the concept of “knowledge reservoirs” (McGrath and Argote 2000,
Widding 2005) is used to describe the total knowledge network that is available when
developing businesses and exploit opportunities. (Shane and Venkataraman 2000, Sarasvathy
2008). The concept seems to be useful within the context of this paper as a description of the
whole learning community or network the 24 entrepreneurs drew upon in their ambitions to
grow their businesses. The dynamic nature of the knowing and knowledge reservoir building
(Sveiby 1997, Choo 1998), also seems to fit the process that is described by the entrepreneurs
themselves. They constantly tested their assumptions and strategies on the available knowledge
network especially by means of knowledge sharing and reflections. Through these methods it
also seems probable that a lot of tacit knowledge was brought up to explicit and verbalized
knowledge (Nonaka 1994). Given that entrepreneurial firms are primarily based on
entrepreneurs’ knowledge, the firms’ knowledge reservoirs largely consist of personal tacit
knowledge. By emphasizing open and shared reflection and personal experience the program
offered possibilities to conceptualize individual bound tacit knowledge and made this available
for the whole learning network.
Page 146
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The mix of trainers’ competencies and effects upon research
Women & Growth was established upon an INTERREG base which implies
assumptions about cross-border cooperation being preferable regarding factors such as
innovation, competitiveness, knowledge development and research (http://www.interreg-
sverige-norge.com/). Figure 1 illustrates different goals pursued in this program, among them
two research goals, research goals pursued by the 24 entrepreneurs and the PROST group in
cooperation and research goals pursued by members of the PROST group. Among the first
group, the anthology (von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013) definitely was the most important one.
Among the other group paper publications like this one is an example. For both types of goals
though data delivered by the entrepreneurs were the main source and cooperation between
PROST and entrepreneurs, but also between entrepreneurs were crucial in order to succeed. In
this connection the cultural or cross-border dimension is an interesting factor. If we first
consider the entrepreneurs and the inter-relations between them, the material points in one
direction. Even though mid-Sweden and mid-Norway are quite similar in most cultural factors
(Lindvert & Rennemo 2013), the cross-border dimension was appreciated by the entrepreneurs
(Ibid.). The illustrative examples below tell about a situation of similarity that did not make
obstacles for cooperation. On the other hand, the differences experienced created motivation
and energy.
-Irrespective of country it is valuable and helpful to get input and feedback from people in other countries,
it gives new perspectives on culture, business legislation and so on. –I have got important feedback and
information from both countries, the differences are small but being from different countries gives an
extra dimension and increases my curiosity.
More important was probably the cross-border and cross-campus cooperation within the
team of researchers (PROST). As mentioned, the group of ten came from four different research
institutions, three from Norway and one from Sweden, four Swedes and six Norwegians. The
institutions have different programs in entrepreneurship education and different research areas
and traditions as well. This was definitely helpful in developing interdisciplinary results and
offered complementary competencies. Several researchers have argued that this is a way of
developing entrepreneurship education and research (Janssen, Eeckhout, Gailly & Bacq 2009,
Hynes, O’Dwyer & Birdthistle 2009, Mendes & Kehoe 2009), but there is a lack of successful
examples. The cooperation between the four Scandinavian institutions is evaluated as
successful by the researchers themselves, their institutions and the funder. An evident output of
this is the publishing activities as a result of the research goals in the program (Figure 1). Apart
from the anthology, up to now 10 articles are published in international journals and more are
in production. In addition a lot more conference papers are presented. Most of this research was
conducted and later published by means of cross-campus cooperation. As for the entrepreneurs
there are strong indications that the cross-border network among the team of researchers (the
PROST group) will last for years and that the cooperation between research institutions is
strengthened as a result of the program. The data being produced in the program will probably
show value for years and for different research purposes. As one member of the PROST group
put it in one of his/her research reflections: I’m swimming in empirical data!
FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS
Some main findings are emphasized; the first one is related to the competencies that
seem to be crucial to develop among growth oriented entrepreneurs. The Women & Growth
project as well as others (Gstraunthaler & Hendry 2011) underlines the necessity to focus on
developing an entrepreneurial mind-set (Von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013, Bogren & Mørkved
Page 147
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
2013, Dahlborg 2013). It can also enrich the entrepreneurs with a variety of perspectives
(Bogren, Rennemo & Widding 2013) enabling them to think and act creatively and “outside the
box” and encourage them to take risks. An action-oriented program over a period of time seems
to be very suitable as a program design to manage developing such competencies. In this
program the entrepreneurs were supported by a great variety of competencies among the
trainers/researchers which seems to have been very important. The trainers’ competencies were
able to reflect or mirror the competencies that were needed to develop among the entrepreneurs
in different periods of the development program, needs that were recognized as well on
individual as well on group levels. But even though the learning network among the
entrepreneurs themselves is part of this “knowledge reservoir” (Widding 2005), the focus on
learning from each other, as a basic principle in action-oriented programs generally, seems to
have been very important. Another positive outcome of the AR process in this program was the
competence development among the teachers and researchers from different mid-Scandinavian
universities or research institutions involved in this program. Researchers have argued that there
is an increasing gap between the steadily raising entrepreneurial education programs offered by
universities and the lack of qualified teachers in all educative levels (Singh 2008). This program
has demonstrated the effectiveness of the AR strategy in developing competencies among the
group of trainers. Also, as shown by others (Finkle, Soper, Fox, Reece & Messing 2009),
regional collaboration among different universities enables the whole group of trainers to
benefit from the strengths that are only found in some of the locations.
The findings in the article are presented with reference to a Scandinavian development
and research program based upon general principles from AR. Even though the findings
presented about design principles and heterogeneity and complementarity among the team of
trainers/coaches/researchers seem evident, we have to consider the cultural dimension of the
findings. As Hytti (2008) argues, education does not take place in a vacuum. The effects of
regional, cultural and environmental aspects need to be taken into consideration when designing
an educational program. Women & Growth, took place in the Scandinavian region. Here the
Scandinavian or Nordic welfare model dominates. It emphasizes elements such as equality,
consensus, autonomy, empowerment, cooperation and relational orientation (Schramm-
Nielsen, Lawrence & Sivesind 2004, Lindvert & Rennemo 2013). Consequently, it might be
that the action-oriented path in entrepreneurship education and training is more suitable to
follow in this part of the world than elsewhere. This is an interesting follow-up question for
further research.
Finally, another follow-up research question from this study is further investigation in
the same group of entrepreneurs that participated in Women & Growth in order to find out more
about long-term effects of such an action-oriented program. This applies both to the project
staff (PROST group) and the long-term effects of cooperation among the four research
institutions involved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the 24 Scandinavian entrepreneurs who participated in the Women
& Growth research and development program, for letting my research colleagues and I become
involved in their challenges as they developed their businesses. I also would like to thank my
research colleagues for energizing discussions, fruitful cooperation and helpful reflections
when arranging and designing the program. We all thank INTERREG for funding the program.
Page 148
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
REFERENCES
Ahl, H.J. (2002), The Making of the Female Entrepreneur a discourse analysis of research texts on women's
entrepreneurship , Jönköping: Jönköping International Business School.
Argyris, C., (1990), Bryt forsvarsrutinene. Hvordan lette organisasjonslæring, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget/Pentice
Hall.
Argyris, Putnam &Smith, (1985), Action Science - Concepts, Methods and Skills forResearch and Intervention,
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Arpiainen, R-L, Lackeus, M., Täks, Marge & Tynjälä, P. (2013), “The source and dynamics of emotions in
entrepreneurship education learning process”, Trames, 17(67/62),4, 331-346.
Birch, D. (2004), “Education matters – but does entrepreneurship education?», Academy of Management
Learning and Education, Vol. 3(3), 289-292.
Bogren, M. & Mørkved (2013), “Den kvinnelige entreprenøren – utvikling av foretakeridentitet,” Ch. 5 in Von
Friedrichs, Y. & Rennemo, Ø. Eds., Kvinners foretak og foretakende kvinner – Vekstentreprenører i
Skandinavia, Trondheim: Akademika Forlag.
Bogren, M., Rennemo, Ø. & Widding, Ø. (2013), Ch.7 in in Von Friedrichs, Y. & Rennemo, Ø. Eds., Kvinners
foretak og foretakende kvinner – Vekstentreprenører i Skandinavia, Trondheim: Akademika Forlag.
Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D. & Maguire, P. (2003), Why action research? Action Research, vol. 1, 9–28.
Chandler, G. N. and Lyon, D. W. (2001), ‘Issues of research design and construct measurement in
entrepreneurship research: the past decade’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 25, 4, 101–13.
Choo, C. W. (1998), The Knowing Organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Coghlan,
D. & Brannick, T. (2010), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, London: Sage.
Czuchry,A., Yasin, M. & Gonzales , M. (2010), “Effective entrepreneurial education: A framework for
innovation and implementation”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol.7:39-55.
Dalborg, C. (2013), “Tillväxt I kvinnors företag“,Ch. 4 in Von Friedrichs, Y. & Rennemo,Ø. Eds., Kvinners foretak
og foretakende kvinner – Vekstentreprenører i Skandinavia,ademika Forlag.
Daly, S.P. (2001), “Student-operated internet business: true experiential learning in entrepreneurship and retail
management”, Journal of Marketing Education, vol. 23 (3), 204-216.
Davidsson, P., Low, M. and Wright, M. (2001), ‘Editors’ Introduction: Low and MacMillan ten years on:
achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research’. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, vol. 25, 3.
Dick, B. (2006), ’Action Research literature’, Action Research, vol. 4:439-458.
Fayolle, A., (2010), “Insight from an international perspective on entrepreneurship education” in Fayolle, A. (ed.),
Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 3, Edvard Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Fayolle, A. & Kyrö, P. (2008), The Dynamics between Entrepreneurship, Environment and Education,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Finkle, T.A., Soper, J.C., Fox, D., Reece, J. & Messing, J. (2010), «Constructing an innovative model of
entrepreneurship education thorough regional collaboration» Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,
vol.12: 43-66.
Grant, S. (2007), Learning through being and doing. Action research, vol. 5, 265–274.
Greenwood, D.J. & Levin, M. (2007), Introduction to action research: social research for change, Thousand Oaks
Calif: Sage
Gstraunthaler, T. & Hendry, S. (2011), “Entrepreneurial and accounting education through action-based learning:
The genesis project”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol.14:125-146.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2
nd
edition.
Hagen, A. & Skule, S. (2008), Kompetansereformen og livslang læring, Status 2008. Fafo-rapport 2008:7
Heron, J. (1996), Co-operative Inquiry – Research into the Human Condition, UK: Sage Publication Ltd.
Hills, G. E. (1988), Variations in University entrepreneurship education: An empirical study of an evolving field,
Journal of Business Venturing, Volume 3, Issue 2, 109-122.
Hynes, B., O’Dwyer, M. & Birdthistle, N. (2009), “Entrepreneurship education: meeting the skills needs of
graduates in Irland”, in Page West II, G., Gatewood, E.J. & Shaver, K.G., Handbook of University-wide
Entrepreneurship Education, UK/USA: Edward Elgar.
Hytti, U. (2008), “Enterprise educationin different cultural settings and at different school levels,” in Fayol, A. &
Kyrö, P., The dynamics between Entrepreneurship, Environment and Education, Cheltenham: E. Elgar.
Janssen, F., Eeckhout, V., Gailly, B. & Bacq, S. (2009), “Interdisciplinarity in cross-campus entrepreneurship
education”, in Page West II, G., Gatewood, E.J. & Shaver, K.G., Handbook of University-wide
Entrepreneurship Education, UK/USA: Edward Elgar.
Kuckertz, A. (2013), “Entrepreneurship education: Status Quo and prospective developments”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, vol.16: 59-71.
Page 149
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Kyrö, P., (2008), “A theoretical framework for teaching and learning entrepreneurship”, International Journal of
Business and Globalisation, 2,1,39-55.
Lautenschläger, A. & Haase, H. (2011), “The myth of entrepreneurship education: Seven arguments against
teaching business creation at universities”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 14:147-160.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1990), Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lindvert, M. & Rennemo, Ø. (2013), “Skandinavien som arena för kvinnliga entreprenörer”, chap. 3 in Von
Friedrichs & Rennemo (eds.) Kvinners foretak og foretakende kvinner – Vekstentreprenører i
Skandinavia, Trondheim: Akademika Forlag.
McGrath, J. E., and L. Argote. (2000), “Group Processes in Organizational Contexts.” In Blackwell Handbook of
Social Psychology: Group Processes, edited by M. A.Hogg and R. S. Tindale, 603-627. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Mcmullan, W. E., & Long, W. A. (1987), Entrepreneurship education in the nineties. Journal of Business
Venturing, Volume 2, Issue 3, 261-275.
Mendes, A. & Kehoe, C. (2009), “Academic entrepreneurship: possibilities and pitfalls,” in Page West II, G.,
Gatewood, E.J. & Shaver, K.G., Handbook of University-wide Entrepreneurship Education, UK/USA:
Edward Elgar.
Minzberg, H. (2004), Managers not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Management
and Management Development. Harlow, Essex: FT Prentice Hall.
Nelson, T. & Duffy, S. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education: women, men, sex and gender”, in Fayolle, A. (ed.),
Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, vol.3, UK/USA: Edward Elgar.
Page West III, G., Gatewood, E.J. & Shaver, K.G. (2009), Handbook of University-wide Entrepreneurship
Education, UK/USA: Edward Elgar.
Pittaway, L. & Cope, J. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence, International
Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 (5) 497-510.
Reason P. & Bradbury H. (2008), The Sage Handbook of Action Research, Sage Publications.
Rennemo, Øystein (2006), Levér og Lær – aksjonsbasert utvikling i resultatorienterte organisasjoner, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Revans, R. (1977), “Action learning and the nature of knowledge”, in Education and training,
Nov/Dec. 1977.
Sarasvathy, S. D. 2008, Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Schramm-Nielsen, J., Lawrence, P. & Sivesind, K.H. (2004), Management in Scandinavia: culture, context and
change, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sexton, D. L. (1997), ‘Entrepreneurship research needs and issues’. In Sexton, D. and Smilor, R. (Eds),
Entrepreneurship 2000. Chicago, IL: Upstart Publishing Company.
Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2000, “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.” Academy of
Management Review 25 (1): 217-226.
Silberzahn, Philippe. & Silberzahn, Pierre (2010), “Artists and scientists as entrepreneurs: a call for a new
research agenda for entrepreneurship”. In Fayolle A., Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship
Education. Volume 3: International Perspectives. Edvard Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Singh, R.P. (2008), “The shortage of academically trained entrepreneurship faculty: Implications, challenges and
opportunities”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol.11:117-130.
Sveiby, K. E. 1997, The New Organizational Wealth. Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.Torbert, W. (2004), Action inquiry : the secret of timely and
transforming leadership / Bill Torbert with Suzanne Cook-Greuter ... [et al.]. - San Francisco, CA :
Berrett Koehler.
Von Friedrichs, Y. & Rennemo, Ø. Eds. (2013), Kvinners foretak og foretakende kvinner – Vekstentreprenører i
Skandinavia, Trondheim: Akademika Forlag.
Widding, L. Ø. (2005), Building Entrepreneurial Knowledge Reservoirs, International Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development.12, 4, 595-612.
Åsvoll, H. & Jacobsen, P.J. (2012), “A case study: Action based entrepreneurship education. How experience
problems can be overcome and collaboration problems mitigated,” Journal of Entrepreneurship
Education, vol.15: 75-97.
Page 150
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Page 151
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
BUILDING AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
EQUITY OWNERSHIP POLICY FOR
ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS: THREE
DIFFERENT APPROACHES
David Rahn, California State University
Tammy Schakett, Ohio Northern University
David Tomczyk, Quinnipiac University
ABSTRACT
Intellectual property (IP) protection and co-ownership of student businesses is an issue
every entrepreneurship program needs to address. However, there is little literature about how
to do this. After reviewing the literature, we present three different approaches to such policies: a
hands-off approach, an evolving approach, and a structured approach. For each, we describe the
methods for student IP and co-ownership issues and the justification behind these approaches,
offering insight for educators seeking to build their own programs. At the end we suggest factors to
consider for developing a university policy or refining an existing one.
BACKGROUND
Many entrepreneurship classes and programs throughout the U.S. have students work in
teams to develop ideas. Sometimes such exercises are just that—opportunities for students to
practice skills taught in the class. Other times, they are serious efforts to help students launch
businesses. Pedagogically, there are a variety of justifications for doing this, one of the key being
that it offers hands-on and realistic experiences under the supervision of a faculty or staff mentor.
Other schools have Tech Transfer Offices or otherwise offer students the opportunity to develop
businesses based on other people’s ideas under the supervision or with the involvement of the
school. But as anyone who works with students can attest, not every student idea actually works
out. For a variety of reasons, student teams may dissolve, fall apart, or just fade away.
The problem, though, is that as soon as two or more people work together on a business
idea, they are legally partners in a business entity (Uniform Partnership Act §101). Many people
are unaware of this law and how it connects to every student team. Even worse, many faculty
and staff are unaware of the legal ramifications that may affect them as a result, potentially with
significant legal or financial ramifications for all parties involved—which includes the instructor,
other classmates, and even the school.
Three Scary Stories
At Quinnipiac University, two students formed a team to create interactive stories about
current events for children. Over the course of the semester, they both worked incredibly hard
and, with a shoestring budget, created a functional app—and a deep, abiding hatred of each
other. When the semester ended, both students disagreed with who had the rights to the business.
With no clear policy to guide them, they threatened to bring in lawyers. They both ended up
pursuing other ideas before that final step.
Page 152
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
At California State University, Chico, two students formed a team to create an early
version of a crowdsourcing platform for inventors. The pitch was compelling and believable and
the students were encouraged by various mentors, family and friends. A significant amount of
progress was made and meaningful milestones were accomplished. One student graduated and
out of necessity had to move back home and find work. The other remained in school, where he
was able to actively pursue the business idea. Shortly, the two began arguing over the lack of
effort by the participant living remotely. The student who remained active argued that the other
should give up all equity or reengage. That individual refused on the grounds that his early
contributions were substantial. Several months later, after much arguing, talking with attorneys,
and the realization that without costly legal action no further progress would be made - two very
aggravated individuals both began to pursue other ideas and an opportunity was lost.
At Ohio Northern University, faculty and guests watched a senior capstone presentation
given by a collaborative team of business and engineering students on the feasibility of an
automated mower. A faculty member asked who owned the product. After some confusion the
business students pointed at the engineering students who shrugged and said, “Yeah, we think
it’s ours.” There was a minor uproar from the back of room as a third group, the original student
team who had pitched the product in an elevator pitch competition, informed all present that it
was their idea. All the students were upset as well as the faculty advisors over the confusion of
ownership. With the intervention of a parent, who happened to be a patent attorney, and pizza,
the issue was eventually resolved.
If these stories sound disconcerting, they should, and they happen every day on campuses
worldwide. The purpose of this paper is to provide some basic guidance on how to solve these
problems for colleges and universities the U.S. This is not meant to be legal advice. Each country
has its own laws and regulations, so the solutions presented in this paper may not be applicable
to faculty and staff in other countries.
The Inadvertent Partnership Problem
There has been a plethora of research into technology transfer policies on campuses
primarily covering licensing agreements, joint research ventures, and the impact of policies on
faculty and researchers (Siegal & Phon, 2005). This paradigm concentrates on the organizational
level of entrepreneurial partnership activity on campuses between the universities, faculty, and
businesses/government organizations (Siegal & Phon, 2005). Other researchers in this area
concentrate on entrepreneurship pedagogy impact. For example, Silva, Henriques, and Carvalho
(2008) examine entrepreneurial education for engineering students, citing the need for
“intellectual property awareness” and how they teach this in an entrepreneurship course.
However, one of the biggest potential legal risks arising on campuses today comes out of
student business plan teams, and in particular, the claim of co-ownership that might be raised by
team members under traditional principles of partnership law. After extensive research, it was
found that despite the potential problems that could arise, little literature has addressed this topic,
and of the relevant topics, most were written by Professor Anthony Luppino, culminating in his
most recent articles on the topic (Litton, Patterson & Little, 2014; Luppino, 2009, 2012). While
Luppino has done an excellent job discussing the legal ramifications that arise from this
challenge, the lack of literature indicates that the dangers of the inadvertent partnership—student
teams that form legal business entities even without any formal acknowledgement or
documentation—may not be adequately addressed by entrepreneurship programs and classes,
leaving open the possibility of potential harm to students, professors, and schools alike.
Page 153
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
When students work on a team, the potential for disputes regarding the intellectual
property rights that can be asserted by faculty, students, and the university can arise when
innovation occurs at a university or with the use or assistance of university resources. Luppino
(2009) identifies these issues as a potential impediment to university-based innovation and
entrepreneurship. He also addresses the problem of what he calls the “accidental or ill-defined
partnership.” For this paper, we will refer to these as “inadvertent partnerships” as we believe
this phrase captures both accidental and ill-defined partnerships.
Luppino specifically addresses the problem of a co-ownership claim arising out of
student teamwork at universities including student team projects in traditional classroom settings
and student team projects in business planning or idea/innovation competitions. With regard to a
team project in a traditional joint course-work assignment, he explains:
Thus, it is possible that, if the assignment generates valuable property, claims to
ownership or at least shares of proceeds from exploitation of that property might logically be
made by every student on the team, course instructors or teaching assistants and perhaps the
university itself (Luppino, 2009; pg. 414).
These concerns are exacerbated by the fact that there is a precedent for successful
businesses arising from student work as part of a class (such as in the case of Fred Smith and
FedEx), extracurricular activities or work (such as with Bill Gates and Microsoft), or from social
interactions or experiences directly connected to the school (such as with Mark Zuckerberg and
Facebook). Such high success businesses have financial and reputational impacts on the school,
the professors, and the students who may have participated in the formation of a business
(Herrington, 2010). This means that participants in the process have an incentive to pursue—
possibly through legal channels—any windfalls. (Herrington 2010, 22) notes:
When those products are patentable, universities’ and students’ contributions often
become mixed, which leads to legal consequences for both students and their universities. Not
only students but also professors and administrators who work with them would benefit from
clear assessments of their legal relationships before entering them.
The courts have ruled that schools are not entitled to any portion of the works (the
business itself or intellectual property developed for it) or any results (financial, reputational,
etc.) of student businesses unless the students were employed by the university or college and
such stipulations were included in the employment contract and/or the students were utilizing
resources and equipment exclusive to the school, such as a strain of bacteria only the school has
access to. Similarly, a professor has no claims to the ideas or intellectual property developed in a
class unless the professor acted beyond his or her capacity as an instructor and truly contributed
to the business, such as substantive financial investment or assuming a key role in the business,
and/or the development of its intellectual property, such as contributing substantively and
creatively to the creation of the intellectual property (Luppino, 2009). However, this leaves open
the dilemma of students working in a team in the class.
According to the Uniform Partnership Act §101 (1994) a partnership is “an association of
two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.” While intent to form a co-
ownership association for profit is necessary to create a partnership, the parties do not need to
have expressly intended to form a “partnership.” Partnership statutes generally include a list of
factors that will help to determine the existence of a partnership relationship, but there is no
bright line test for making this determination. This means it is left to the courts to determine the
Page 154
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
issue on a case-by-case basis. For students on a team, this means that they may have co-
ownership claims on any and all intellectual property developed as a result of a class unless they
have an alternative option to pursue for the class. Universities that have established policies
and/or professors who implement policies in their classrooms can help to mitigate any potential
problems, but there is no perfect solution.
While Luppino concludes that “it seems unlikely a court would find all of the necessary
elements of partnership in a typical course project,” there is a stronger claim of co-ownership in
a course structured as a business planning class (Luppino, 2009; pg. 415). While by itself this
can create long-term problems, such classes often face short-term dilemmas as well as the classes
may be connected to competitions, either as part of the class itself or encourages students and
student teams to participate in external competitions. These competitions usually have financial
and in-kind rewards in addition to the notoriety of placing in the competition. The addition of
these external prizes that go beyond a grade mean that the students must wrestle with the
ownership issues such as dividing “profit” (the winnings from the competition) and reputational
considerations like titles in the business and dealing with publicity for their business (Luppino,
2009).
Litton, Patterson & Little (2014) note, “the average undergraduate business student has
no appreciation for the realities of the business organizations they may have formed.” Professor
Luppino’s advice to universities is clear: “First and foremost, a university should inform students
of what is at stake when they create innovations in course projects, advise them that significant
rights and obligations may be involved from the outset and explain to them that they would be
well served to get the advice of their own legal counsel in sorting through these matters”
(Luppino, 2009; pg. 417). Luppino further recommends that students be given disclosures about
the legal ramifications of their actions and decisions. They should be given information on how
to find and engage legal counsel, particularly lawyers with relevant specialties and who may
offer their services for free or at discounted rates.
Additionally, Litton, Patterson & Little (2014) suggest that universities consider four
factors when forming students teams; 1) voluntariness; 2) profitability; 3) intent; and 4) timing.
Voluntariness refers to whether students formed teams or the instructor formed the teams.
Partnership formation requires voluntary formation; however, even if students are placed
together, if they choose to work on an idea and pursue it beyond a class assignment, such an
action indicates an agreement to voluntarily enter into a partnership with their teammates.
Profitability is determined by the purpose of the course and the team. If the course requirement is
completion of an assignment and not pursuit of profit, then for all of the teams in the class, most
likely a partnership is not formed. However, intent refers to what students hope to accomplish.
Again, if the goal of the team is the pursuit of a grade, then generally a partnership is not formed,
but if the team seeks to earn profit, whether for a grade or for business, partnership status applies.
Timing refers to when the project changes into actual pursuit for profit and the intent of the team.
While these factors need to be considered, every university has differing policies and local, state,
and federal laws could potentially impact this issue. As a result, no one approach seems to fit
every situation.
Page 155
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE THREE APPROACHES
There is not necessarily one “right” way to create IP and ownership policies. Rather,
there are multiple ways that are dependent upon many factors. These approaches can range from
putting the responsibility for co-ownership on the students (a hands-off approach) to having a
detailed and involved approach to cover all legal bases (a structured approach). However, these
are two endpoints of a continuum, and many schools, based on their comfort with
entrepreneurship, concern about legal ramifications, the comfort level of the professors, and the
culture of the school and students, among other considerations, may fall somewhere in-between.
Presented are three approaches that three universities, Quinnipiac University, California State
University, Chico, and Ohio Northern University use: one from each end of the continuum and
one from the middle. Each approach was developed to meet the needs of our students while
matching the culture of the entrepreneurship programs we have built. These are examples of how
schools can approach building their own policies, explaining the justification the decisions made
by the three universities so that others may understand the thinking and use these as a basis for
crafting their own policies. Provided below is a summary of the three approaches, followed by an
in-depth look at each school to better explain the reasoning behind it, the environment in which it
has been applied, and any drawbacks to the approach.
A Hands-Off Approach: Quinnipiac University
At Quinnipiac University, when approaching how we wanted to address the topic of
inadvertent partnerships (students working on a team together to build a business), we considered
the following:
1. We did not want our students to focus so much on this topic that it would become a barrier to them
sharing ideas. At the same time, we wanted them to understand the full legal implications of their
actions in and out of class.
2. We wanted students to use ideas that they were serious about starting, rather than using fictional ideas.
Passion leads to greater learning outcomes, and we wanted to facilitate this.
3. We wanted to encourage collaboration not only between students on a team, but also across teams.
Ideas formed in isolation are rarely as high quality as those developed with input from other people.
4. Any document or policy we developed needed to be fair to all people involved: the student(s) who had
the idea, any that helped develop the idea, and the professor of the class or staff member mentoring the
team.
5. Asking people to sign non-disclosure agreements is not an effective way to protect an idea. First and
foremost, they are incredibly difficult to enforce. Students are bound to discuss interesting ideas
outside the classroom, which may include the team’s ideas and the ideas of other teams. In addition,
we have designed our program to encourage people to actively test and validate their assumptions
about their business models, including verifying with their target market that they are in fact interested.
This leads to further dissemination of the idea and additional people who would need to sign the
document. Moreover, at least one class has a competition open to the public at the end of the semester
with the ideas presented to a panel of judges and the public, while others encourage students to be
involved in entrepreneurship events and competitions outside the school.
Page 156
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
6. We wanted to avoid a Facebook-like scandal of people arguing that their contributions to a successful
business were not given credit as a situation like that would be detrimental to the Entrepreneurship
program, the University as a whole, the professor or staff member in charge, and team members acting
in good faith.
7. Entrepreneurship professors and most staff members mentoring teams are rarely experts in legal
matters or intellectual property, and asking professors to guide students through the complexities of the
law and intellectual property regulations is doing both the professors and the students a disservice.
Our solution to these problems was two-fold. First, we developed a disclosure statement.
This statement alerts the students to the challenge of who owns an idea in a team, using an
abstracted example of a team of four students who develop a business idea in the class. After the
class ends, one of the students continues to pursue the idea, developing it into a successful
business. The other team members find out and, after complimenting their peer, note how the
business was all of their idea, followed by asking about when they might see the profit from
“their” idea.
After presenting the students with this scenario, we then offer them alternatives to sharing
their idea in class if they are concerned that such a scenario might happen to them. The first
option is that the student may choose to be a “free agent,” a person who helps someone else
develop his or her idea. The second option is that the student could develop a business they
designed specifically for the course rather than sharing an idea they have been working on
independently or as part of an independent team.
We conclude the disclosure statement with a notice to the student that the University
supports and encourages students to work collaboratively. We point them to relevant University
policies (of which Quinnipiac University has few). Finally, we note that this disclosure statement
is not legal advice and that students are encouraged to seek their own legal counsel if they have
questions or concerns.
During the first week of any class in which the students are creating a business, we
introduce the students to the disclosure statement and have them read it as assigned reading.
Students are encouraged to discuss the course policy and the disclosure statement with their
teams and work out an arrangement that best suits them.
Students are also informed that no one will sign NDA or confidentiality agreements as
part of the class nor in any outside events connected to the class such as business plan
competitions or events, even ones run as part of the class.
Non-Exclusive Right to Pursue Ideas
In an entrepreneurship class, the students will inevitably hear the other teams’ ideas,
some of which have the potential to be highly successful ideas. However, once the class is over,
the instructor has little to no ability to follow up with every single student for the foreseeable
future (much less the indefinite future) to ensure that only those people who worked on an idea
from the class are pursuing it. In addition, someone pursuing an idea usually further refines and
evolves it, combines it with other ideas, or modifies it in some other way. We, as academics,
instructors, and mentors, do not want to assume a policing role, having to determine whether or
not an idea is sufficiently changed to be considered a “separate” idea, determining where an idea
Page 157
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
came from since a person may be exposed to an idea from multiple sources, and having to
continually follow up with people to check whether or not they are following the class policy. In
addition, this more closely maps to the U.S. patent system that allows—and indeed encourages—
people to build upon the ideas of others.
To date, no student over the past five years, to our knowledge, has intentionally or
unintentionally used another person or group’s idea. What we have found, and many of our
colleagues have also found, is that there are two major barriers to students starting businesses
around ideas other people have created. The first is that students tend to view the amount of work
and effort another team invested into a business as a huge obstacle to pursuing the idea
themselves. The original team has already invested a semester of their time at a minimum, which
includes meetings with experts, planning sessions, and countless discussions and debates over
the span of months. To have to recreate even a portion of that is daunting.
The second barrier is that students are rarely as passionate about another team’s ideas as
they are about ideas they create themselves. The end result is that, no matter how interesting the
idea appears to be, students are rarely motivated to claim that idea for themselves. The prospect
of working on someone else’s idea is a bit too similar to having to work for a company for those
who are truly entrepreneurial, while at the same time needing to launch a business is too
entrepreneurial for people who are more intrapreneurs. The end result is that students may talk
about what a great idea someone has, but rarely do they go any further than the conversation.
Equal Ownership of an Idea
By law, all people in a team who contribute to the development of a business idea and/or
intellectual property (whether a patentable idea, copyrightable code, or some other protected
material) are equal owners with non-exclusionary rights to pursue and use the idea. To reinforce
this, we specifically choose to remain independent of any determination of who the originator of
an idea was and what contribution each person made to it. Not only is such determination
incredibly difficult, we also have no legal right to say that one person’s contributions to the
group were or were not significant and thereby affects ownership of the idea. For example, while
one person may have an idea coming into the class, that idea gets shaped by the team over the
course of the semester, sometimes radically. Determining who contributed which part of an idea
is difficult enough; accounting for the fact that one or more ideas that were not included in the
final design led to those ideas makes the situation even more complicated. As we want students
to focus on contributing to the business’s development rather than on documenting each
individuals’ contributions, having a default policy of equal ownership makes the most sense.
Letting the students determine how they wish to divide ownership of a business or
intellectual property at a pace of their choosing also reflects that the teams rarely know up front
who will want to continue pursuing the idea after the end of the class, who will be in which
leadership positions, who will contribute money, resources, knowledge, expertise, and time to
the project, among many other considerations that could affect ownership. By freeing the
students from determining this at the beginning when their idea is barely formed or requiring it at
the end, we allow them to actively focus on the business and discuss the topic in a time and
manner when it best suits their needs.
Page 158
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Ability to Adjust Ownership of an Idea
Not every team works on an idea created for the class; some work on an idea one or more
people had and have worked on prior to the class. Not every team has everyone contribute
equally, even if some or all of the people are going to continue working on the business after the
class ends. For these instances among others, we allow teams to create their own ownership
distributions without locking them into one fixed agreement. For example, we had one team with
a person who had been working on his idea over the summer, doing an independent study even to
help develop the idea. When he recruited his team, he added four individuals, but he was clear
that he wanted to continue pursuing this idea as his idea, that the four other individuals would not
have equity in the business. The four people were amenable to this, they put the agreement in
writing, and the team had no issues relating to ownership. Another team revisited their ownership
split halfway through the class when they realized that not all of the team was committed to
pursuing the idea after the class finished. All of this was done independently of their instructors.
Our students appreciate the flexibility and being treated as young professionals, and we as
educators can direct them to experts when they have questions.
No Confidentiality Agreements/NDAs
Students are informed that they should be sharing their ideas with other people, but that
they need to be smart about what they share. Such documents are near impossible to enforce,
which means that having people sign them without proper follow-up could leave the instructor or
mentor in a tough situation where s/he must attempt to unravel whether or not a breach of the
agreement has happened, and if so, how and to what extent, often based solely on hearsay. It may
also leave the instructor legally liable if the instructor is issuing and requiring the completion of
the forms. We point our students to such documents and we discuss when such documents are
appropriate, and we also discuss appropriate sharing of their ideas, encouraging discussion with
legal expertise if students seek more information.
Drawbacks
While the hands-off approach has many advantages, there are several downsides to the
approach. The first is the onus it places on the instructor or mentor to ensure that teams are
educated about potential legal implications to their businesses and have access to or are pointed
in the direction of adequate legal counsel. This approach requires an active involvement of the
faculty and staff up front, which means planned interactions early in the students’ academic
careers and/or classes to convey the necessary information.
One other challenge for this approach is that some students may be uncomfortable with
the necessary conversations they must have with their teammates about how they wish to
structure the equity in their idea. Without a clear policy in place, such students may not have the
structure they need to make the best decisions possible for themselves or their businesses. This
approach depends on students having the maturity and drive to seek their own guidance. At the
other end, students given the freedom to discuss co-ownership on their own time sometimes
focus on the issue at inappropriate times, such as when the team is first forming. This can result
in friction as the business develops and can detract attention from other more important
components of the business. In addition, if the conversation happens when an instructor or
mentor is not around, it is a lost opportunity for a teaching moment.
Page 159
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Hands-Off Approach Conclusion
By removing ourselves from the legal decisions relating to co-ownership and referring
our students to subject matter experts, we prevent the faculty from being put in a position where,
well-intended or not, they may be giving bad legal advice. Students get to experience the real-
world decisions of forming teams and creating intellectual property and businesses with
oversight, but they never feel locked into a position. In addition, faculty are not required to
assume additional responsibilities as “idea police,” allowing them to focus on working with the
students and their ideas. This comes at the sacrifice of control over the conversations—both in
when and how they occur.
An Evolving Approach: California State University, Chico
This narrative speaks to the approach of a single course and incubator program and does
not represent a University or program-wide policy, except where noted, or the approaches of
other instructors in the Entrepreneurship program. The course and incubator programs described
are intended to support students who would like to understand what a real attempt to launch a
business requires; given that intention, it is especially appropriate for this course and related
incubator program to concern itself with these issues. This write-up identifies the approach as it
exists at the time of this writing.
At California State University, Chico, our e-Incubator program’s goal is to launch
businesses online as directly and efficiently as possible, and there is a corresponding course
which allows students to earn credit for learning similar materials. The e-Incubator program is
available to students across the university and expects students to launch a business, the course is
an elective in the entrepreneurship program and teaches students what is entailed in the process,
offering them an opportunity to launch or not.
The nature of the e-Incubator and course is a focus on the “Lean Start-Up” approach,
which favors a rapid launch to test business models. Our approach is, “Test the business model
using customer development techniques, and adjust as needed.” We determined that for many
student businesses, students themselves are potential customers, and so the course was ideal for a
“mastermind” format where students from the whole class give significant feedback to all other
student projects in the class. Students would sit in the “Founder’s Chair” and get peppered
politely with questions by their peers. Right from the first instance of this course, students
identified the mastermind approach as a very valuable element of the course.
Given the fast-paced nature of the course and the highly collaborative culture, several
guiding principles emerged to ensure the program provides an effective experiential exercise to
students and teams working toward launching businesses and testing business models. The
following guiding principles emerged:
1. Acknowledge that there is an actual potential for ownership/partnership issues and take steps to avoid
these issues by taking reasonable precautions using our best available understanding.
2. Encourage students to understand the implications associated with corporate structure, IP protection,
and team structure reasonably early.
3. Encourage students to begin participating in the “mastermind” approach to sharing as early as possible;
students should feel generally safe and secure while sharing, a feeling of camaraderie should emerge
from the safety of the environment.
4. Impart a sense of seriousness about trying as many ideas as possible that students feel are good. In
other words, if possible, don’t hold back your best idea—bring out your best stuff and go for it.
Page 160
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
5. Recommend that students invest in legal advice as appropriate. Our experience indicates that students
who pay for legal advice actually feel more committed, and thus by having some “skin in the game,”
seem to have a sense of commitment and this translates into higher engagement.
As students encounter this program, they immediately recognize that the notions of
collaborating and safeguarding IP appear to be at odds, and naturally raise these as issues. This
further opens the door to additional concerns. These concerns can be summarized as:
The University Policy on student IP and how it affects student businesses and ideas;
Protecting ideas in a collaborative class;
Handling equity (splitting, retaining, getting it back) while working on a team;
Dealing with a desire to change ideas partway through the class;
Incorporating as a legal entity; and
Preparing for a pitch to the Accelerator Fund.
These concerns came up with regularity in each class and over the course of several
semesters a common framework has emerged:
1. Present a set of overarching recommendations to provide context for the course;
2. Clarify the University Policy on student IP;
3. Clarify the classroom IP policy for intra-class understanding and agreement; and
4. Clarify the inter-student IP policy for managing teams and IP and encourage early understanding and
decision making while remaining as flexible as possible.
Overarching Course Recommendations
First and foremost, students are encouraged to decide what they want to get out of this
course. Students are encouraged to develop ideas they are passionate about. Most students arrive
with one or more ideas they are passionate about and want to pursue. There are other students
who come in without an idea they are passionate about, but instead have a desire to learn the
techniques for anticipated use at a later time. There are also students who have one or more ideas
but still prefer to learn the techniques now and apply them later. The point is to encourage them
to understand what they want to accomplish, what the ramifications are related to that purpose,
and what they need to understand so they can take the appropriate steps. For example, a student
who comes into the course without an idea and wants to join another student or team should be
ready to accept that he or she is working on the project as a course effort, not as a business
partner.
Students in the course have been exposed to corporate forms in a previous required
course. We encourage students to immediately review materials covered in the prerequisite
course since different corporate forms have different ownership, profit distribution and tax
implications. This is a key area for hiring an attorney given its importance and level of
complexity. Information, but not advice, is provided on the topic. Students should be able to get
to the point where they can articulate and defend, in their own words, reasons for choosing a
specific corporate form as a strategic element of their business model.
Page 161
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
University Student IP Policy
For our students, one of the central concerns is not the equity split, but rather the
ownership of IP generated during the formation process. We thus focus much of our co-
ownership discussions around IP and provide two sources of information on this topic. First,
students are directed to the actual university executive memorandum. Then, in class, a brief
discussion covers important highlights.
In any ordinary class or function in which students enroll or participate, students are
creating intellectual property they own. The value of this IP is undetermined and may of course
be negligible. The primary means our university uses to establish an agreement relating to
ownership of student IP is termed “extraordinary support.” This level of support “is normally
agreed upon in advance and set forth in a contract.” The memorandum indicates that in the
absence of a contract with the university, it is likely that extraordinary support does not exist.
Students are told that if there are questions in their mind about ownership, they have an
obligation to themselves and their team to resolve this to everyone’s satisfaction. Students are
responsible for clarifying the ownership question with a private attorney or university attorney
dealing in such matters.
Classroom IP Policy
The course syllabus contains a few important statements. Neither has been tested in any
legal process, but they do seem to give students a general sense that everyone intends to play
fair. The first is a “No Partnership” statement, and the second is a ‘Confidentiality’ statement.
The “No Partnership” clause states that students come into the class and agree that while they
will provide feedback on many other students’ ideas presented in class, they agree that there is
no implied partnership. The language is more expressive than that, but essentially they are
relinquishing all rights to their contributions to other teams, much the way an independent
contractor does in a professional client-contractor relationship. Given that they themselves
receive feedback on their own project, there does seem to exist valuable consideration, which
may be important when considering the enforceability of the language.
The “Confidentiality” clause is simply intended to put all students on notice that only the
creators and/or owners of projects are free to discuss them outside of class. This clause is
intended to ease students’ minds rather than provide legal protection; indeed many students
participate in competitions, surveying and interviewing of potential customers at some point in
the semester, and at that point, the ideas are exposed to the general public. The clause specifies
that we as a class respect that we are privileged in that we are receiving confidential information
on other students’ projects.
Neither of these approaches has been tested legally, so there is no precedent upon which
to assume these are enforceable. However, they do serve to initiate the spirit of collegiality and
support that we are trying to impart into the classroom, so they are important from that
perspective. While the status of syllabi as legal contracts has been brought under scrutiny from
time to time, it seems more prudent to include them than to omit them.
Page 162
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Inter-Student IP Policy
Over the course of a semester, interest in and expectations of the business idea can
change dramatically. There are a few approaches that have been used here, and they are flexible
so they can cover a range of situations. One approach is the use of a standard contract, another is
the use of a “class project” contract, and the last is a new approach (or rather a new take on an
existing concept of dynamic equity splits) we are experimenting with that allocates “potential”
equity based on agreed upon factors and measured contribution.
In a case where student teams come into the class, have already agreed upon an equity
split, and completed some development on the project, they are encouraged to formalize the
agreement by putting it into writing via a standard contract. Despite how straightforward this
appears on the surface, problems with these occur fairly often. The main problem that occurs is
that one member decides he is not interested in the project anymore at some point, for example
when the semester ends and the project has not yet taken off. Early project enthusiasm can lead
to somewhat irrational thinking, and in retrospect, students may indicate they ‘over-shared’
equity and wish they had been more thoughtful about the division.
A “class project” contract is basically used by founders when they enter the class
unwilling to give an equity sharing deal due to the amount of work they have already done on the
project. Some students turn out to be very willing to join projects like this. They acknowledge
that they are joining a project that a student has worked on previously, and that equity is not
being offered. This approach has been used several times. In each case, the participants have
decided that a modest monetary stipend was appropriate and subsequently was offered,
negotiated and settled upon. The reason a monetary stipend was offered was based on
suggestions by an attorney that a contract should provide value to each party and that some
amount of money would demonstrate this was done. In two cases, an equity position was offered
at the end of the semester to one or more of those who originally joined without an equity
position.
Finally, there are many cases where students are unsure of how to structure a deal and
want maximum flexibility, having team members earn equity. For this situation, , under the
direction of legal counsel, students consider several approaches, one popular one being based on
the ideas outlined by Mike Moyers in his book Slicing Pie. In this arrangement, different types of
contributions are defined and categorized, and valuations are assigned. Contributions in the
category of work like accounting and marketing are typically given hourly dollar valuations,
which students can figure out fairly easily, along with multiplier values based on whether
payment is made or not. Contributions in the form of cash, property, or other tangible goods are
given agreed upon values. For example, the group may decide that early cash contributions are
actually worth 4X the amount of the original contribution to account for risk. These valuations
can be negotiated and agreed upon ahead of time. Then, as the team moves ahead, it tracks the
investments for various contributions. In this approach, each individual is earning future equity.
Page 163
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Drawbacks
Whereas the hands-off approach allows great flexibility in who can be on a team and how
roles may be structured, this more structured approach needs things to be better defined in order
to ensure that the proper IP and co-ownership policies are applied to the team. This goes beyond
just knowing whether or not the team was pre-formed or if the team will accept other people as
employees rather than co-founders. Outside members joining a team may impose additional
policies to come into play; for example, a professor or staff member joining a team may cause
certain clauses of the university policy to apply with regards to IP and revenue sharing with the
university, and these would need to be identified prior to the business being worked on in the
class or program.
In addition, as discussed in the hands-off approach, getting students to sign
confidentiality clauses or including such in the syllabus may give students a false sense of
security or put the instructor or mentor in a difficult situation if a student seeks for it to be
enforced. As noted, the legality of such documentation has not yet been tested, and the legal
implications to the school are thus not fully understood.
Finally, dynamic equity splits are difficult to master and tedious to track, and because
these are students who typically have relatively little work experience or business knowledge – it
is challenging for them to establish what constitutes good value to a startup. Education and
mentoring cannot completely mitigate the biases and naïvety they may bring to the discussions,
possibly resulting in unbalanced weighting of contributions.
Evolving Approach Conclusion
This semi-structured approach allows students to join an existing idea if their goal is to
learn the process of entrepreneurship rather than launching their own business. The approach
also enables a student to continue to retain ownership if they bring the idea to the class and prefer
this approach. Dynamic equity splits encourage students to discuss with their teams how they
wish to handle co-ownership through the use of quantitative measures so that equity is not an
“either you’re in or you’re out” approach. This enables teams to move ahead with flexibility and
it addresses shortcomings of a formal equity split, and associated challenges that may arise.
A Structured Approach: Ohio Northern University
Ohio Northern University has developed its entrepreneurship program with the goal of
embedding the entrepreneurial mindset (EM) in all students across campus. EM includes
effective collaboration in a team setting; applying critical and creative thinking to ambiguous
problems; constructing a customer- appropriate value proposition; persisting through and
learning from failure; and effectively managing projects. EM is embedded in all business core
courses and the Principles of Entrepreneurship (POE) course is required for engineering and
pharmacy students with an increasing number of Arts & Science programs.
One of the primary methods of operationalizing these outcomes is ONU’s version of an
elevator pitch competition held each semester. POE and other courses require students to
participate. These teams can choose to submit their product ideas for consideration by the
Business and Engineering colleges to become year-long senior capstone projects and seniors are
encouraged to launch these products to market. POE students approached faculty with regards to
Page 164
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
ownership of the ideas after hearing that several of the senior capstone projects were successfully
launched. Inadvertently, ONU failed to consider ownership of the ideas by the original teams that
developed them. Additionally, clear ownership was not established with the senior teams.
Complicating the matter was the need to negotiate ownership of the business when the
original teams merged with the senior teams, which could be comprised of just engineering
students, just business students, or an interdisciplinary team. This could take a partnership from
the original five student team up to potentially seventeen student teams.
Faculty Concerns
1. The faculty needed to address the following concerns while maintaining EM outcomes:
2. Students needed to understand the legal issues of entrepreneurship without impeding creativity and
innovation that is so vital to the entrepreneurial mindset.
3. Students needed to negotiate issues with others in ambiguous situations where the outcomes are not
black and white and not all negotiations are successful.
4. Students needed to pursue taking their ideas to market knowing that there is a personal risk to the
endeavor and that not all ideas are feasible or successful.
5. Encourage teamwork and communication skills with students within their disciplines as well as across
disciplines.
6. Establish clear lines of ownership for the original teams to protect their ideas while allowing them to
be open to new possible partnerships that might address their team weaknesses.
7. Avoid any legal complications due to public disclosure issues and equity positions among the teams.
There needed to be frank and open discussions about ownership rights and the amount of equity
position in the partnerships based on perceived contributions of the original or new team members.
8. Attempt to keep this as simple as possible given that the faculty members do not have the necessary
legal backgrounds to address the many issues that might occur.
Student Concerns
In the POE sections, students prepare for an elevator pitch competition over a five-week
period. They are required to develop a product idea that is creative, unique, innovative, feasible,
and marketable. The excitement leading up to the competition encourages them to be motivated
and committed to being successful beyond the need for a passing grade. This is particularly
important for the non-Business students who have not considered the opportunities provided by
an entrepreneurial career. Their passion and sense of ownership becomes even more evident as
they work through the process of taking a product to market and it dawns on them that there is
potential for profits while understanding the risks and potential for failure. Discussions within
the team move from “Is the idea creative, unique, innovative, feasible, and marketable?” to
“How do we protect our assets?” They express concern about how much to pitch—whether they
want to submit their idea for consideration as a senior capstone project or maintain it solely as
their own. They inevitably move from perceiving this event as a mere class assignment to the
true entrepreneurial potential it can become for them.
Handling Ownership and Disclosure
Given all of the concerns, ONU developed a non-disclosure form and a simple one-page
ownership equity form (OEF). The non-disclosure form is employed only during the elevator
pitch competition and signed by the judges. The form provides protection for the students’
Page 165
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
product ideas from basic public disclosure issues. It is explained to the judges that students may
be taking their ideas to market and request that they do not ask questions that may impede
patentability.
Leading up to the competition, IP and public disclosure issues are discussed with students
in class. As teams, they explore the US Patent Office web site for prior art and complete internet
searches to ensure that their idea is sufficiently unique from similar products to patent.
Additionally, students are coached by faculty not to disclose any specifics that may impede
patentability with other students or with the judges during the competition. While they are
encouraged to produce prototypes, ONU discourages the use of CAD drawings or other detailed
material, discussing the impact of this decision on their ability to patent their ideas.
The OEF was developed by a POE faculty who is a practicing attorney in the state of
Ohio. Currently, it is only used in the POE course sections. It is very basic and written so that
students understand what they are signing. The form consists of two options: Option 1 allows
students to maintain all ownership rights to the product idea; and Option 2 allows students to
relinquish all ownership rights. It is assumed that ownership is divided equitably among each
team member unless agreed upon by the team differently.
Each team member is required to sign the form either maintaining or relinquishing their
ownership rights. The form is distributed to the teams during class following a discussion on
business formats, including what should be included in partnership agreements and basic articles
of incorporation. Students are given time in class to negotiate with their team members about
who wants to maintain or relinquish ownership, and, in some instances, they will negotiate
equity positions. Recognizing that many of our students may not understand the ramifications of
signing the form, we give the students additional time so that they may discuss the options with
their parents/guardians.
If product ideas are considered for senior capstone projects, then the senior teams enter
into negotiations with the original team that chose Option 1. The teams have two choices: one,
negotiate a new partnership agreement with new equity positions established; or two, the senior
teams can simply be considered as consultants. Negotiation for reimbursement of services if the
original team takes the product to market then becomes necessary. It is also understood that not
all students in the competition are interested in pursuing their ideas to market for any number of
reasons and choose Option 2. However, some of these ideas are marketable and could still be
considered for senior capstone projects. Option 2 allows the senior teams to pursue these
opportunities unimpeded and under no obligation to the original team members.
Drawbacks
As noted before, one of the challenges with legal documents in a classroom or academic
environment relating to co-ownership (including IP protection) issues is that they have not been
tested in the courts. To what extent such documents would hold up, the university might be held
liable, or the extent of language that must be provided is uncertain. That being said, the
documents for ONU follow the structure of documents that would be provided to any person
looking to start a business, so it seems reasonable to expect that the documents would be
accepted in court.
Page 166
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
At ONU, students are offered the option to decide whether they will retain or relinquish
all ownership rights of their idea at the end of the POE class. Extrapolating this larger, structured
approach encourages students to make the determination to what extent they wish to remain
involved in the future of their business. However, students may not be equipped to handle such a
decision at that point depending on their own personal process for making big decisions and
whether or not they truly understand what they are being asked to decide. Even knowing that this
decision is coming and given a week to consider the document, some students may feel rushed in
their decision. Others may not like the binary states, instead preferring to have the option to
leave, stay, or re-join the business later at their choosing.
Structured Approach Conclusion
Since instituting the use of the forms, ONU has not had any issues, but the form is
untested and is continuing to be update to address new issues as they arise. Faculty appreciate the
clear guidance, and many student teams are satisfied with the level of IP protection and clarity
relating to co-ownership of the business that the forms provide. By treating the student teams
essentially like newly forming businesses right from the start, ONU creates a professional
environment and immerses them in the decisions businesses face. This comes at the expense of
flexibility for the students and teams—decisions need to be made when the documents are
offered to ensure that all teams are covered by the policy.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN BUILDING OR REFINING A UNIVERSITY POLICY
Each approach is different and comprehensive, and a person or group looking to
implement or change their current co-ownership policy may be uncertain where to start when
seeking to change their own university, program, or class’s policy. Below, we outline the process
all three schools used to change or create the policies discussed above.
At the university level, you first need to determine whether your university has a policy
and whether students and faculty know about it. If there is a policy already in place, it needs to
be actively disseminated to the students, faculty, and staff. Changes may be made after people
are aware of the full extent of the policy as understanding the baseline is key to ensuring that any
modifications are consistent with an approach fostering entrepreneurship, protecting the
university, faculty, staff, and students, and staying true to Federal law. If there isn’t a policy, all
relevant stakeholders should discuss whether a policy should be developed at the university level
and what it should cover. This process should then be repeated for increasingly smaller groups,
such as for a School of Business, a major, and programs within the major. It is possible that
several levels will not have a policy. At Quinnipiac, for example, there is little policy at the
university level and none at the school or program level. The policy is currently applied
throughout the major and is being considered for raising it up to the university level.
Once a policy (or policies) is in place, each class’s syllabus should reflect the policy and
direct students to where the policy can be found. If the language is dense or beyond the scope of
the students’ current understanding, class time or materials need to be made available to help the
students understand the policy. Students should be notified what the classroom policy is prior to
having to disclose any information about their ideas and before any teams are formed. Instructors
Page 167
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
should consider how they wish to handle non-disclosure agreements, if at all, if such are not
covered in the policy.
As a result of the policy, students should have a default process or state for their business.
That is, the policy should not leave students in a void. At ONU and California State University,
Chico, this is accomplished through the documents the students develop and sign. At Quinnipiac
University, there is a blanket policy that clearly identifies students’ relationships to their
businesses in the event that the students do not create some other document. Thus, for any given
group of students, students should negotiate a team contract or accept the default policy of the
class. Prior to choosing an approach, they need to discuss how to handle under-, non-, and over-
performers; equity ownership; and patent, trademark, and copyright ownership. Mentoring and
class lessons can be provided to help facilitate this process.
CONCLUSION
Students gain academic value from collaborating with others in experiential learning
activities in the classroom and extracurricular activities that may or may not create future
intellectual property, such as patentable products (Herrington, 2010). But as discussed, it is
important that students, faculty, staff, and the administration at universities have a clear
understanding of the potential pitfalls. “When all parties to collaborative interactions are aware
of the legal implications of their choices and make decisions that are consistent with the
outcomes they desire, collaborative work can be beneficial to all” (Herrington, 2010, 49).
We have discussed here three different approaches: a hands-off approach that leaves the
responsibility for ownership and IP protection in the hands of the students; an evolving approach
that continually attempts to adapt to the co-ownership needs of its student teams; and a more
structured approach with clear guidelines about establishing ownership of business ideas. All
three approaches include education about ownership and IP protection issues, and all three allow
students to make informed decisions about these topics. In addition, each approach also
incorporates students receiving expert legal advice, through encouraging them to seek it out,
through having such experts provide input into the design of the program, or both.
So far, none of the three approaches has been tested in a court of law, and indeed, that
may very well be a sign that they are effective. Each approach attempts to prevent students from
reaching the point where they feel that pursuing a lawsuit is the best (or only) option regarding
their business idea. This is relatively uncharted territory since no major lawsuits have been filed
against a school yet. However, the key word there is “yet”; with the growth of entrepreneurship
programs across the country, there will come a time when such issues will arise. A school
unprepared for that day may very well find itself implementing a set of policies that could quash
the innovativeness and openness needed for a robust entrepreneurial community in its school.
The goal of this paper is to begin a larger discussion of handling the legal side of
entrepreneurship at all schools, allowing educators to create the best experiences for students and
faculty alike.
Page 168
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
REFERENCES
Herrington, T. 2010. Student rights in their intellectual products. Intellectual property on campus: Students’ rights
and responsibilities. Southern Illinois University Press.
Herrington, T. 2010. Legal effects of student collaborative efforts. Intellectual property on campus: Students’ rights
and responsibilities. Southern Illinois University Press.
Litton, J., Patterson, R., & Little, A. (2014). Business organization legal issues arising from ideas generated by
university students. Southern Law Journal. Fall2014; 24(2)267-280.
Luppino, A. 2009. Fixing A Hole: Eliminating Ownership Uncertainties To Facilitate University Generated
Innovation, 78 UMKCLR 367
Luppino, A. 2012. Some Approaches to Clarifying Ownership Issues for Student Inventors & Student Entrepreneurs.
Workshop presented at the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, January 2012.
Moyer, Mike, 2012. Slicing Pie: Funding Your Company Without Funds. Version 2.3. Kindle Edition. Retrieved
from Amazon.
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Uniform Partnership Act (1997). Copy right 1994,
1996, 1997 by National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
Siegel, D.S. & Phan, P. 2005. ‘Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implication for
entrepreneurship education’, in Liebcap, G (Ed.), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, Innovation, and
Economic Growth, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science/JAI Press, pp. 1-38.
Silva, A., Henriques, E., & Caevalho, A. (2009). Creativity enhancement in a product development course through
entrepreneurship learning and intellectual property awareness. European Journal of Engineering Education,
34(1), 63-75.
doc_694236498.pdf
During this explanation explicate journal of entrepreneurship education ismet anitsal.
Volume 18, Number 2 Print ISSN 1098-8394
Online ISSN 1528-2651
JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
EDUCATION
Editor
Ismet Anitsal
Tennessee Tech University
An official journal of the
Academy for Entrepreneurship®
The Journal of Entrepreneurship Education is owned and published by Jordan Whitney
Enterprises, Inc. Editorial content is under the control of the Allied Academies, Inc., a non-profit
association of scholars, whose purpose is to support and encourage research and the sharing and
exchange of ideas and insights throughout the world.
Page ii
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Authors execute a publication permission agreement and assume all liabilities. Neither
Jordan Whitney Enterprises nor Allied Academies is responsible for the content of the
individual manuscripts. Any omissions or errors are the sole responsibility of the
authors. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection of manuscripts for
publication from among those submitted for consideration. The Publishers accept final
manuscripts in digital form and make adjustments solely for the purposes of pagination
and organization.
The Journal of Entrepreneurship Education is owned and published by Jordan Whitney
Enterprises, Inc., PO Box 1032, Weaverville, NC 28787, USA. Those interested in
communicating with the Journal, should contact the Executive Director of the Allied
Academies at [email protected].
Copyright 2015 by Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc., USA
Page iii
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
Michael D. Meeks Joseph Aniello
Louisiana State University in Shreveport Francis Marion University
Robert M. Singh Stephanie Huneycutt Bardwell
Morgan State University Christopher Newport University
VijaykumarPandharinathWani Bill Laing
Mumbai Educational Trust's, Institute of Engineering Walden University
Benjamin C. Powell Kenneth J. Lacho
Appalachian State University The University of New Orleans
Dianne H. B. Welsh Eugene Kaciak
University of South Carolina at Greensboro Brock University
Laurent Josien Ganesan Ramaswamy
SUNY Plattsburgh National Foundation for Entrepreneurship
Development (NFED)
M. Meral Anitsal Matthew P. Earnhardt
Tennessee Tech University Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Archie Addo Lynnette Claire
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University University of Puget Sound
Fatima Sirelkhatim Sujata Mukherjee
University of Liverpool NMIMS School of Business Management
Page iv
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT & INTELLIGENCE AMONG STUDENT
ENTREPRENEURS………………………………………………………………………………1
Mark Shrader, Gonzaga University
Todd Finkle, Gonzaga University
FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS AND NEGOTIATION SELF-EFFICACY: A STUDY ON
NEGOTIATION SKILL BUILDING AMONG WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS………………17
Veronica Guerrero, California Lutheran University
Judith Richards, California Lutheran University
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL
UNIVERSITY……………………………………………………………………………………29
Charles Harrington, University of South Carolina Upstate
Ramin Maysami, Jackson State University
THE DRIVERS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS - AN EMPIRICAL STUD AMONG
INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDENTS…………………….39
Natalie Kaltenecker, Institute for Information Systems and New Media, LMU Munich
Christian Hoerndlein, Institute for Information Systems and New Media, LMU Munich
Thomas Hess, Institute for Information Systems and New Media, LMU Munich
THE ‘BUSINESS CONCEPT’ COMPETITION AS A ‘BUSINESS PLAN’ ALTERNATIVE
FOR NEW AND GROWING ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS: WHAT’S THE BIG
IDEA?.............................................................................................................................................53
Robert Laud, William Paterson University
Stephen Betts, William Paterson University
Sam Basu, William Paterson University
PUBLISHING CHILDREN’S BOOKS WITH INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS: REFLECTING
ON STUDENT INNOVATION THROUGH THE LENS OF TONY WAGNER……………..59
Stephanie A. Fernhaber, Butler University
Erin Albert, Butler University
Angela Lupton, Butler University
BUILDING A SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP
EDUCATION…………………………………………………………………………………….73
Astri Ghina, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung Institute of
Technology
Togar M. Simatupang, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung Institute of
Technology
Aurik Gustomo, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung Institute of
Technology
Page v
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
USING THE BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS AS A METHODS APPROACH TO TEACHING
ENTREPRENEURIAL FINANCE…………………………………………………………..….99
William T. Jackson, USF St. Petersburg
Daniel James Scott, USF St. Petersburg
Nathan Schwagler, USF St. Petersburg
DEVELOPING UNDERGRADUATE ENTREPRENEURIAL CAPACITY FOR SOCIAL
VENTURE CREATION……………………………………………………………………..…113
Erik Noyes, Babson College
Benjamin Linder, Olin College of Engineering
EFFECTS OF TRAINING METHOD AND AGE ON EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS OF
MEXICAN YOUTH ENTREPRENEURS……………………………………………………125
Héctor X. Ramírez-Pérez, Universidad Panamericana Guadalajara
Ann Marie E. Smith, Dowling College
Jorge E. Franco-López, Universidad Panamericana Guadalajara
Juana Román-Maqueira, Organization of American States
Elsa-Sofia Morote, Dowling College
ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAINERS – THE COMPETENCE MIX IN ACTION-ORIENTED
ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS………………………………….135
Øystein Rennemo, Nord-Trøndelag University College
BUILDING AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND EQUITY OWNERSHIP POLICY FOR
ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS: THREE DIFFERENT APPROACHES……………..151
David Rahn, California State University
Tammy Schakett, Ohio Northern University
David Tomczyk, Quinnipiac University
Page vi
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Page 1
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT & INTELLIGENCE
AMONG STUDENT ENTREPRENEURS
Mark Shrader, Gonzaga University
Todd Finkle, Gonzaga University
ABSTRACT
This study fills a gap in the entrepreneurship literature by investigating creative
achievement and intelligence within students who have been entrepreneurs. The study looks at
differences in the levels of creative achievement and intelligence between students who have
been entrepreneurs versus those who have not been entrepreneurs.
The study used the Creative Achievement Quotient (CAQ) (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins,
2005) and college entrance exam scores and grades as measures of intelligence. There were
several significant findings. First, students who had been entrepreneurs had significantly lower
college entrance exam scores. Secondly, students that had been entrepreneurs had significantly
higher CAQs. Finally, students that had been entrepreneurs performed significantly higher on
four measures of the CAQ: Architectural Design, Inventions, Scientific Inquiry, and Theater and
Film. The findings and their implications are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
According to the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity (Kauffman Foundation,
2014), since 1996, America’s overall business creation rate declined from .31% of American
adults per month starting businesses to .28% in 2013. People have been trying to understand the
causes for such a drop. Is it government intervention and/or regulation? Is it big companies
purchasing smaller companies? This research focuses on trying to understand more about student
entrepreneurs, creativity and intelligence. These relationships are all under investigated in the
field of entrepreneurship.
Much attention has been focused on the importance of creativity to the success of
organizations and individual careers. Creativity and innovation are essential ingredients that
entrepreneurs bring to organizations to create new products, services, and ways of thinking
differently that allows organizations to create competitive advantages within the global
marketplace. A 2010 American Management Association study identified creativity and
innovation as one of the four critical skills needed for business success today and in the future
(Schmidt, Soper, & Facca, 2012). CEOs identified creativity as the number one leadership
competency of the future (Bronson & Merryman, 2010). As a result of the increased rate of
change in technology today, creativity is a critical skill for recognizing and creating opportunities
to satisfy customer needs (Allen, 2012).
Despite the obvious importance of creativity to economic growth and welfare, Bronson
and Merryman (2012) noted a consistent decline in the creativity scores of U.S. students since
1990. Sternberg (2010) stated that the greatest problem facing colleges today in admissions,
Page 2
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
instruction and assessment is that administrators are locked into an archaic notion of what it
means to be intelligent. The U.S. higher educational system has relied on standardized tests that
measure cognitive and memorization-based intelligence for a long time. Unfortunately, these
tests have created a learning environment that rewards the traditional methods of thinking and
discourages creative thinking. The U.S. needs a better instrument to measure a student’s creative
ability. Furthermore, schools need to do a better job of fostering creativity within students in
higher education. But how can we do this? Sternberg and Lubart (1995) stated that a person’s
level of creativity could be developed in varying degrees. But what about intelligence? And how
does creativity and intelligence relate to entrepreneurs? It is evident that creativity and
intelligence exist in all people to varying degrees.
It is at this point that we investigate these relationships at a critical juncture; during a
person’s higher educational experience. Given the importance of creativity to the economy and
the field of entrepreneurship, we investigate two research questions that will assist us in
understanding creativity and intelligence within students that have been entrepreneurs. The first
research question is: Is there a difference between the Creative Achievement Quotient (Our
measure of creativity) of students that have been entrepreneurs versus students that have not been
entrepreneurs? We measure whether or not a student has been an entrepreneur by asking them:
Have you ever been an entrepreneur of a startup? The second research question is: Is there a
difference between intelligence scores for students that have been entrepreneurs versus students
who have not been entrepreneurs? A discussion of the findings and their implications follows.
BACKGROUND ON CREATIVITY
Creativity has been investigated by numerous scholars in fields such as psychology,
education, cognitive science, philosophy, business, linguistics, history, theology, sociology, and
economics. One result of this is that there is not a high degree of standardized thoughts on
creativity. Meusburger (2009) stated that there are over 100 definitions of creativity. Examples
include Boden’s (1994) assertion that creativity is producing something that is novel or different.
Barringer and Ireland (2012) and Gryskiewicz (1987) state that creativity is the process of
generating a novel or useful idea. Rhodes (1961; 1987) suggested that the definition of creativity
is related to four different potential areas: (a) the person who creates, (b) the cognitive processes
involved in the creation of idea/product, (c) the environment in which creativity occurs, and (d)
the end products of creative activities. An individual is regarded as creative if he or she solves
problems frequently and is capable of displaying content in a certain domain in a flexible and
novel manner (Gardner, 2006; Wodtke, 1964) and eventually will be recognized and agreed upon
by others regardless of culturally setting differences (Yi, Sulaiman & Baki, 2011).
Individuals who are creative in nature tend to utilize their cognitive and affective
resources and abilities to resolve difficulties and challenges in life (Helson & Srivastava, 2002).
Creative individuals are believed to exhibit a style of living and thinking that leads to a regularity
of breakthroughs in specific domains or disciplines rather than across the board (Gardner, 1993).
According to Gardner (2006), “Creativity is a characterization reserved to those whose products
are initially seen to be novel within a domain but are ultimately recognized as acceptable within
an appropriate community.”
Page 3
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Despite all of the definitions of creativity, there is no one set definition that we can use.
Amabile and Tighe’s (1993), theory of creativity stated that there are three basic components
within an individual that are required for creativity in any given domain or discipline. The three
components are namely domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills and task motivation.
Domain-relevant skills refer to elements related to the individual’s level of expertise in a specific
domain which includes basic intelligence or talent in the domain, knowledge acquired through
education, experience and technical skills in the domain. Creativity-relevant skills consist of
cognitive and personal styles that are important in producing novel and useful ideas in any
domain. The creativity component is task motivation where it involves one’s self-perceived
motivation for engaging in a particular task in a specific domain at a particular point in time. The
task motivation portion exists in two forms, intrinsically and extrinsically.
Creativity and Intelligence
Multiple studies have examined the relationship between creativity and intelligence.
Results have been mixed. Wallach and Kogan (1965) found no relationship between creativity
and intelligence in fifth grade children. Eysenck (1995) and Taylor (1995) believe that only
geniuses can be creative. Srivastava and Thomas (1991), Sarsani (2008) and Yi, Sulaiman and
Baki (2011) found a positive relationship between creativity and intelligence. However, Getzels
and Jackson (1962) found no relationship between the two.
Emami, Bardai, and Ismail (2013) examined the relationship between entrepreneurship
and IQ in the Graduates Bio-technology entrepreneurial program at UNIRAZAK. Their findings
showed that there was a weak positive correlation between entrepreneurship traits and creativity
and with leadership while the correlation with emotional quotient (EQ) was quite strong. The
findings also showed that EQ and IQ had weak positive correlations with creativity.
Amabile (1996) suggests that there is no relationship between creativity and intelligence
as measured through IQ tests or grades in school. Sternberg and Lubart (1995) suggest that
creativity is similar to intelligence in that everyone posses it in some (non-fixed) amount that,
importantly, can be further developed in varying degrees. DeBono (1992) also suggests that
creativity can be developed in individuals. These last two studies, combined with Amabile’s
(1996) results, have important implications for entrepreneurship educators. If there is no strong
direct relationship between creativity and intelligence, educational efforts to stimulate creativity
may be more successful across a broad spectrum of students.
INTELLIGENCE AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The relationship between intelligence quotient (IQ) and entrepreneurship is an
understudied area in the field of entrepreneurship. Few researchers have looked at how
intelligence affects the odds that a person will become an entrepreneur. Research on IQ has been
performed in other areas. For example, higher IQ is associated with higher earnings (See Bowles,
Gintis, & Osborne, 2001; Strenze, 2007; Jones & Schneider, 2010).
But how important is IQ when it comes to determining if someone becomes an
entrepreneur? de Wit and Van Winden (1989) and de Wit (1993) found that IQ scores, when
measured at age 12, had a positive significant effect on a person’s propensity to become self-
Page 4
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
employed later in life. Van Praag and Cramer (2001) examined 1763 schoolchildren and found
entrepreneurial talent was positively related to IQ measured at age 12.
Shane (2009) reports that students who got “mostly A’s” in college are about 2 percent
less likely than other students to be working for themselves. That is, better students were less
likely to become self-employed. For a lot of majors — foreign languages, computer science and
business — grades in college did not seem to have an impact on whether people became
entrepreneurs. In comparisons among graduates in these majors, the self-employed had
statistically the same grade point averages as those who worked in other professions (Shane,
2009). But for three majors — math, science and engineering, and statistics — the results were
different. Graduates in these majors, who ended up self-employed, did slightly worse in school
than those who did something else for a living. There was no significant difference between the
average G.P.A. of statistics majors who became self-employed. They had an average 2.76
G.P.A., while the whole sample was 2.84 (Shane, 2009).
Based on existing research, we hypothesize (H1a) that entrepreneurship students will
have significantly higher college entrance exams. We expect higher IQ scores to be associated
with students who become entrepreneurs. This leads to H1a:
H1a: Students that have been entrepreneurs will have significantly higher college entrance scores than
students who have not been entrepreneurs.
We also examined students’ current GPAs. Similar to Shane (2009), we are of the
opinion that just because a student has a high GPA does not necessarily mean that they are an
entrepreneur or have been an entrepreneur. As such, we propose the following:
H1b: There will be no significant difference between entrepreneurship students’ college GPA versus
students who have not been entrepreneurs.
CREATIVITY AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Entrepreneurship and innovative business behavior have long been associated with
creativity (Amabile, 1996; Nyström, 1979; Walton, 2003) and the two are often used
interchangeably. Previous research has been done on the characteristics associated with the
entrepreneurial mind-set. Hornaday (1982) listed creativity and innovativeness as a characteristic
often attributed to entrepreneurs.
In the business context creative novelty and appropriateness is often translated into idea
development (Ward, 2004), new product innovations (Amabile, 1996) and adapting or improving
existing innovations (Kirton, 1987). Methodologically, creativity in entrepreneurship and
innovation has been explained through cognitive processes, attitudes, motivation, existing
knowledge, work environment and personality traits (Amabile, 1996; Walton, 2003; Ward,
2004).
Creativity plays an important part of the entrepreneurial process where it integrates
within the opportunity recognition process (Figure 1). Figure 1 shows how environmental trends
(e.g., economic, social, technological and political) integrate with an entrepreneur’s personal
characteristics (e.g., prior experience, cognitive factors, social networks and creativity). As a
result of this intersection, the entrepreneur seeks an opportunity or problem in the marketplace
Page 5
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
and develops a solution through the creation of a new product, process or service. However,
creativity is important throughout the entire entrepreneurial process.
Figure 1: The Opportunity Recognition Process
Environmental Trends
Economic Factors
Social Factors
Technological Advances
Political and Regulatory Changes
Business, Product or Service
Opportunity Gap New Business, Product
+ ? Difference between What’s ? and Service Ideas
Available and what’s possible
Personal Characteristics
Prior Experience
Cognitive Factors
Social Networks
Creativity
Source: Barringer, B. & Ireland, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures.
There are also several personality attributes that have been shown to be traits of persons
considered to be creative: (a) tolerance for ambiguity, (b) willingness to surmount obstacles and
persevere, (c) willingness to grow, (d) willingness to take risks, and (e) courage of one’s
convictions and belief in oneself (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Wennberg (2004) stated that
preliminary psychometric creativity testing has indicated that there were greater differences
between students with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., entrepreneurship versus
engineering students). This leads to our second hypothesis:
H2: Students who have been entrepreneurs will have a significantly higher Creativity Achievement
Quotient (CAQ) than students who have not been entrepreneurs.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The sample consisted of 126 undergraduate students located at a private West coast
university. The students were enrolled in two entrepreneurship courses and three finance
courses. All of the students completed the survey except for two students who overlapped both
classes. They were only asked to take the survey once.
Procedure
The students were given the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (Carson et al. 2005)
(see Appendix). A few questions were added on measures of intelligence, demographics and
Page 6
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
whether the student had been an entrepreneur and for how long. The survey was 28 questions
long and the students had as much time as they wanted to finish the survey. The survey was
done in the middle of the semester.
The two part study was evaluated into three categories: (1) the entire sample; (2)
entrepreneurship students; and (3) finance students. For the second part of the study, we broke
down our sample into (1) the entire sample; (2) students who had been entrepreneurs; and (3)
students who had not been entrepreneurs. Utilizing t-tests and chi-square analysis, we examined
the differences between the sample populations.
Measures
One of the main issues in the research on creativity is whether to categorize creativity as
domain-specific or domain-general (Han & Marvin, 2002). Research (see Gardner, 2006; Yi et
al. 2011) suggests that creativity may be domain specific. Similar to intelligence being domain
specific in Math, English, Science, researchers have stated that creativity may foster within
specific areas.
This study investigates a proven measure of creativity called creative achievement.
Carson, Peterson, & Higgins’ (2005) study on Harvard University and the University of Toronto
students created a new self-report measure of creative achievement that assesses achievement
across 10 domains of creativity (Visual Arts, Music, Dance Architectural Design, Creative
Writing, Humor, Inventions, Scientific Inquiry, Theater and Film, and Culinary Arts). The
Appendix shows the achievements that the students were to rate. The directions on how to score
the questionnaire is also listed in the Appendix.
To measure intelligence we used two measures. The first was the percentile that a student
scored on their SAT or ACT college entrance test. Students were asked to report both of their
scores. These scores were then broken down into their respective percentiles. If both scores were
received, they were averaged. If only one was received, we used that percentile. Another
measure of intelligence that was used was the student’s current GPA.
Validity and Reliability
Carson et al. (2005) found the CAQ to be both reliable and valid and can provide a
criterion to efficiently measure and study the varied components of creativity. When they gave
the CAQ test at two different occasions to the same sample, all of the internal consistency
reliability scores for the 10 domains were above the .70 minimum standards for research
instruments (Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989).
Furthermore, Carson et al. (2005) characterized the CAQ by solid convergent validity,
when compared to other measures of creativity, including divergent thinking tests and
personality scales. Finally, they found that the CAQ demonstrated good discriminant validity
when tested against IQ indicating its separability from intelligence and proved unrelated to self-
enhancement, indicating that self-report scores on the CAQ were not inflated due to a desire to
inflate personal image.
Page 7
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
RESULTS & HYPOTHESES
Table 1: Characteristics of Students Who Have Been Entrepreneurs versus Students Who
Have Not Been Entrepreneurs
Table 1 shows there were a total of 19 entrepreneurs in the entire sample versus 117 that
have never been an entrepreneur. The average age for all of the students in the study was 21.5
years old with the entrepreneurs averaging 21.3 and non entrepreneurs averaging 21.6. There
were no significant differences in age between the two samples of students.
There was no significant difference in sex with the mean male percentage for the entire
sample at 66%. Sixty-three percent of the students who were entrepreneurs were male while 66%
were male for the students that were not entrepreneurs.
The survey broke down the year in school for the students. We found significant
differences at the senior and junior levels. Eighty-three percent of the students who were not
entrepreneurs were seniors versus 53% for the students who were entrepreneurs (p < .003).
Forty-seven percent of the entrepreneurs were juniors versus 17% for the non entrepreneurship
students (p < .003).
There was a significant difference between the average college entrance percentiles for
entrepreneurship students (74%) versus 81% for the finance students (p < .03). However, there
were no significant differences between GPAs.
Table 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN ENTREPRENEURS VERSUS STUDENTS
WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ENTREPRENEURS (N=126)
All Students
N=124
Entrepreneurs
N=19
Have Not Been
Entrepreneurs
N=115
P value
Age of Students (yrs) 21.5 21.3 21.6 .32
Male (%) .66 63 66 .79
Year in School (%)
Senior 79 53 83 .003**
Junior 21 47 17 .003**
Percentile SAT and/or
ACT
80 74 81.2 .03*
Average GPA 3.39 3.34 3.40 .41
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
It was hypothesized (H1a) that students that had been entrepreneurs would have
significantly higher college entrance scores than students who have not been entrepreneurs. This
hypothesis was not supported. In fact, we found a negative significant relationship where the
entrepreneurship students actually had significantly lower college entrance exams.
We also hypothesized (H1b) that there would be no significant difference between
students who had been entrepreneurs versus students who had not been entrepreneurs. This
Page 8
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
hypothesis was supported. There was no significant difference between grades of the two
samples.
Table 2: Creativity Achievement Quotient of Students Who Have Been Entrepreneurs
versus Students Who Have Not Been Entrepreneurs
Table 2 examines the differences in the Creativity Achievement Quotient between
students that have been entrepreneurs versus students that have never been entrepreneurs.
Additionally, the table examines if there are any significant differences between the 10
constructs that make up the CAQ. Overall, there were several significant differences between
the populations. The entrepreneurs had a significantly higher CAQ score (11.1) versus finance
students (6.9) at the p < .03 level.
There were four significant differences out of the 10 constructs of creativity that were
evaluated. Entrepreneurship students were significantly more likely to have expertise in
Architectural Design (p < .006); Inventions (p < .04); Scientific Inquiry (p < .003); and
Theater and Film (p < .005). There were no significant differences between Visual Arts, Music,
Dance, Creative Writing, Humor, and Culinary Arts.
Table 2
CREATIVITY ACHIEVEMENT QUOTIENT OF STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN ENTREPRENEURS
VERSUS STUDENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ENTREPRENEURS (N=126)
All Students
N=124
Mean
Entrepreneurs
N=19
Mean
Have Not Been
Entrepreneurs
N=115
Mean
P value
Creativity
Achievement Quotient
(CAQ)
7.5 11.1 6.9 .03*
Visual Arts 1.2 2.2 1.1 .12
Music .92 .61 .97 .47
Dance .50 .11 .56 .51
Architectural Design .18 .61 .10 .006**
Creative Writing .71 .44 .76 .38
Humor 1.2 1.3 1.1 .73
Inventions .98 1.8 .84 .04*
Scientific Inquiry .65 2.0 .42 .002**
Theater and Film .52 1.2 .40 .005**
Culinary Arts .63 .83 .59 .12
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
We hypothesized (H2) that students who had been entrepreneurs would have significantly
higher CAQs versus students that had not been entrepreneurs. This hypothesis was supported.
Page 9
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
DISCUSSION
This study evaluated data on 126 undergraduate students from a West coast university
during the spring of 2014. The study fills a gap in entrepreneurship research by looking at
differences in the levels of creative achievement and intelligence between students who have
been entrepreneurs versus those who have not been entrepreneurs.
Specifically, the first hypothesis examined if there were any differences between college
entrance exams and GPAs of students who had been entrepreneurs versus students who had not
been entrepreneurs. We found that current students that had been entrepreneurs had significantly
lower college entrance scores versus current students that had not been entrepreneurs.
Our findings indicate that there may be other factors involved in becoming entrepreneurs
besides IQ. Sternberg (2004) stated that successful entrepreneurship requires a blend of
analytical, creative, and practical aspects of intelligence, which he terms successful intelligence.
Furthermore, we propose that IQ alone cannot measure a person’s aptitude to become an
entrepreneur. There are many factors that are needed to become an entrepreneur that cannot be
measured through an exam such as motivation (or hunger/drive for success), ability to lead
others (leadership), ability to relate to others (social skills), creativity, vision and perseverance.
We also hypothesized (H1b) that there would be no significant difference in GPAs
between students that had been entrepreneurs versus students who had not been entrepreneurs.
This hypothesis was supported. There was no significant difference between grades of the two
samples. This finding is in tune with previous research.
Our final hypothesis (H2) found that students who had been entrepreneurs had a
significantly higher Creativity Achievement Quotient than students that had not been
entrepreneurs. This is supported in the existing literature. For example, entrepreneurship and
innovative business behavior have long been associated with creativity (Amabile, 1996;
Nyström, 1979; Walton, 2003) and the two are often used interchangeably. Previous research
has been done on the characteristics associated with the entrepreneurial mind-set. Hornaday
(1982) listed creativity and innovativeness as a characteristic often attributed to entrepreneurs.
Wennberg (2004) stated that preliminary psychometric creativity testing has indicated that there
were greater differences between students with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g.,
entrepreneurship versus non-entrepreneurship students).
Our findings show that students that have been entrepreneurs have a significantly higher
CAQ level. Furthermore, when we broke down our CAQ scale and examined each construct we
found that entrepreneurship students were significantly more likely to have expertise in
Architectural Design, Inventions, Scientific Inquiry and Theater and Film.
IMPLICATIONS
The U.S.’s level of creativity has been declining for decades along with its level of
entrepreneurship. How can we make a difference? We can start in the classroom by educating
our students more about creativity. Schools and instructors do poorly in providing environments
that spark creativity, rarely allowing students to “pursue projects that encourage them to develop
their creative thinking” (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991, p. 613). Creativity, despite its importance, is
Page 10
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
not generally rewarded in the classroom. Educators need to improve their environmental to
stimulate creativity in the classroom.
Hennessey and Amabile (1987) discuss the issue of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivators
and their effects on creativity. They state that they can be applied to any classroom at any grade
level. That is, creative people are intrinsically motivated to complete a task. Thus, educators
must be aware that, if they implement an extrinsic reward structure with these students, this will
undermine their intrinsic motivation. In other words, allowing students to pursue their own
passions should stimulate creativity within students. Runco and Nemiro’s study (cited in Runco
& Chand, 1995) suggest that motivation is important for creative thinking and that problem
finding would facilitate intrinsic motivation in individuals. In other words, students will be more
motivated when they choose their own tasks. This would make the task meaningful to the
individual. They further suggested that educators devote more time to problem-finding skills to
communicate to students that this ability is as important as problem solving. Often, though,
extrinsic motivators must be used to foster intrinsic motivation.
Hennessey and Amabile (1987) reported that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic
motivation and creative production. In addition, when students expect an evaluation, their focus
switches from intrinsic motivation to extrinsic motivation, especially if they are being observed.
Hennessey and Amabile cautioned that when convergent thinking is a teacher’s goal, then
extrinsic rewards can improve performance on a task. However, when students understand that
their teachers “value” creativity, then this message has a positive effect on creativity. Schools
also should have a continuing evaluation program to determine the effectiveness of their
educational programs in developing creative abilities in their students.
A developmental theory of creativity proposed by Renzulli (1992) suggests that students
should be provided with opportunities to engage in “ideal acts of learning” (p. 171). The learner,
teacher, and curriculum must all be involved for these ideal acts of learning to occur. Renzulli’s
major concern was in how educators can promote a disposition for creative productivity.
Renzulli (1992) stated that one way to enhance someone’s creative production is to have them
focus on their own interest. Their interests can be tasks or objects. Renzulli reported that the
more consistent and intense the interests, the more creative were the students (Fasko, 2001).
Torrance (1981) noted several signs that indicate when creative learning occurs, such as
improved motivation, alertness, curiosity, concentration, and achievement. The art of being a
great teacher comes into play here where teachers have the innate ability to read their students to
enhance the learning environment. The instructor has to realize the importance of positive
energy, being a mentor, role model and advocate for the students.
Sternberg and Lubart (1991) suggest that instructors give more long-term assignments to
develop students’ tolerance for ambiguity. Schools typically do provide a fertile ground for
students to learn to overcome obstacles. Schools, and specifically instructors, need to encourage
students more to take risks with their newly acquired skills. Taking risks is difficult for creative
students because creativity is not always rewarded with good grades (Sternberg & Lubart, 1991).
Perhaps this is due to the negative attitudes teachers hold toward creative students, which is
supported by the findings of Westby and Dawson (1995). Thus, educators must be more aware of
this potential negative outcome of their grading. Instructors need to emphasize that it is alright to
fail. Learning takes place during failure as well as success.
Page 11
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Creative people are rarely the superstars in any organization. Today, the creative work is
achieved by people that we are not aware of in most organizations. They are people with high
levels of creative thinking skills, expertise and are intrinsically motivated. Instructors must be
aware of this and structure their courses so that creativity flourishes. Instructors need to build
relationships with their students to understand their intrinsic motivations. Thus, they can serve as
mentors to the students and give them direction in their future entrepreneurial pursuits.
REFERENCES
Adams, K. (2006). The sources of innovation and creativity. National Center on Education and the Economy,
Washington, DC.
Allen, K. (2012). Launching New Ventures: An Entrepreneurial Approach. South-Western, Mason, OH.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Harvard Business School Teaching Note.
Harvard Business School Publishing. Boston, MA. 1-15.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). The motivation for creativity in organizations. Harvard Business School Teaching Note.
Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA. 1-14.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review. Sep-Oct, 76, 5, 76-87, 186.
Amabile, T. M., & Tighe, E. (1993). Questions of creativity. Creativity: The Reality Club 4. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Barringer, B., & Ireland, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures 4
th
Edition. Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Bowles, S., Gintis, H. & Osborne, M. (2001). The determinants of earnings: Skills, preferences, and schooling.
Journal of Economic Literature. 39, 1137-1176.
Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2010). The creativity crisis. Newsweek July 19, 2010.
Bull, K. S., Montgomery, D., & Baloche, L. (1995). Teaching creativity at the college level: A synthesis of
curricular components perceived as important by instructors. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 83–90.
Carson, S., Peterson, J., & Higgins, D. (2005). Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative
Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37-50.
Chambers, J. A. (1973). College teachers: Their effect on creativity of students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
65, 326–334.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011, March 15). How many successful entrepreneurs would fail an IQ test? Psychology
Today. Accessed August 4 from:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201103/how-
many-successful-entrepreneurs-would-fail-iq-test
Davis, G. A. (1991). Teaching creativity thinking. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted
Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 236–244.
de Wit, G. (1993). Models of self-employment in a competitive market. Journal of Economic Surveys. 7(4), 367-
397.
de Witt, G., & van Winden, F. (1989). An empirical analysis of self-employment in the Netherlands. Small Business
Economics. 1, 263-272.
Emami, M., Bardai, B., & Ismail, W. K. (2013). The interrelationship between entrepreneurial trait-E.Q (Emotional
Quotient), I.Q (Intelligence Quotient), ADHD (Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder), creativity, and
leadership talent. Journal of Entrepreneurship & Management. 2(1).
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The Nature of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 13, 3-4, 317-327.
Finkle, T. A. (2012). Corporate Entrepreneurship & Innovation in Silicon Valley: The Case of
Google, Inc., Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36(4), 863-884.
Freeman, J. (2006). First insight: fostering creativity in university performance. Arts and Humanities in Higher
Education, 5(1), 91-103.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. J. (1962). Creativity and Intelligence: Explorations with Gifted Students. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Page 12
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Gryskiewicz, S. (1987). Predictable creativity. In S.G. Isaksen (ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the
Basics. Bearly: Buffalo, NY. 67-75.
Han, K. S., & Marvin, C. (2002). Multiple creativities? Investigating domain-specificity of creativity in young
children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 98-109.
Helson, R., & Srivastava, S. (2002). Creative and wise people: similarities, differences, and how
they develop. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1430-1440.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1987). Creativity and Learning. Washington, DC: NEA Professional Library.
Hocevar, D. & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J.
A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity. New York: Plenum.
Hornaday, J. (1982). Research about living entrepreneurs. In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, ed. Calvin Kent,
Donald Sexton, and Karl Vesper (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 26-27.
Jones, G., and Schneider, W. (2010). IQ in the production function: Evidence from immigrant earnings. Economic
Inquiry. 48, 743-755.
Kauffman Foundation (2014, April 9). Kauffam Index of Entrepreneurial Activity Interactive. Kauffman
Foundation. Accessed October 8 from:http://www.kauffman.org/multimedia/infographics/2013/kiea-interactive
Kirton, M. J. (1987). Adaptors and innovators: cognitive style and personality. In S.G. Isaksen
(Ed). Frontiers of Creativity Research; Beyond the Basics, Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited,
282–304.
Meusburger, P. (2009). Milieus of creativity: The role of places, environments and spatial contexts. In Meusburger,
P., Funke, J. and Wunder, E. Milieus of Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Spatiality of
Creativity. Springer.
Millar, G., Dahl, C., & Kauffman, J. (2011). Testing the whole mind-educating the whole child. Alberta Teachers’
Association (ATA) Magazine. Accessed June 21 from:http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA Magazine/Volume-
91/Number3/Pages/Testingthewholemind.aspx
Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity through the pursuit of ideal acts
of learning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 170–182.
Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity
research: Beyond the basics (pp. 216–222). Buffalo, NY: Bearly. (Original work published 1961).
Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243–267.
Sarsani, M. R. (2008). Do high and low creative children differ in their cognition and motivation? Creativity
Research Journal, 20(2), 155–170.
Schmidt, J., Soper, J., & Facca, T. (2012). Creativity in the entrepreneurship classroom. Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 15, 123-131.
Shane, S. (2009, July 20). Do good students become entrepreneurs? New York Times. Accessed on August 5:http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/do-good-students-become-
entrepreneurs/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Srivastava, S., & Thomas, A. (1991). Creativity of pre-school children effect of sex, age, birth order and
intelligence. Journal of Psychological Researches, 36(2), 92–98.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful Intelligence. Plume Books. New York, New York.
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Successful intelligence as a basis for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing. 19(2),
189-201.
Sternberg, R. J. (2010, October 10). Teach Creativity, Not Memorization. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
fromhttp://chronicle.com.proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu/article/Teach-Creativity-Not/124879/
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). Creating creative minds. Phi Delta Kappa, 72, 608–614.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. New
York: The Free Press.
Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of
longitudinal research. Intelligence. 401-426
Taylor, B. (1995). Into the Open: Reflections on Geniuses and Modernity. New York University Press, New York,
New York.
Page 13
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Creative teaching makes a difference. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.),
Creativity: Its Educational Implications (2nd ed., pp. 99–108). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
de Witt, G., & van Winden, F. (1989). An empirical analysis of self-employment in the Netherlands. Small Business
Economics. 1, 263-272.
Van Praag, C. M., & Cramer, J. S. (2001). The roots of entrepreneurship and labour demand: Individual ability and
low risk aversion. Economica, 68(269), 45-62.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Nodes of thinking in young children: A study of creativity-intelligence
distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Walton, A. P. (2003). The impact of interpersonal factors on creativity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, 9, 146–162.
Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 173–188.
Westby, E. L. & Dawson,V. L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the classroom. Creativity Research Journal, 8,
1–10.
Wodtke, K. H. (1964). Some data on the reliability and validity of creative tests at the elementary school level.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(2), 399-408.
Yi, H. Y., Sulaiman, T., & Baki, R. (2011). The role of multiple intelligences and creativity in students’ learning
style. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(8), 85-93.
Page 14
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
APPENDIX
CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
I. Place a check mark beside sentences that apply to you. Next to sentences with an asterisk (*), write the number
of times this sentence applies to you.
1. Visual Arts (painting, sculpture)
__ 0. I have no training or recognized talent in this area. (Skip to Music).
__1. I have taken lessons in this area.
__2. People have commented on my talent in this area.
__3. I have won a prize or prizes at a juried art show.
__4. I have had a showing of my work in a gallery.
__5. I have sold a piece of my work.
__6. My work has been critiqued in local publications.
*_7. My work has been critiqued in national publications.
2. Music
__0. I have no training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Dance).
__1. I play one or more musical instruments proficiently.
__2. I have played with a recognized orchestra or band.
__3. I have composed an original piece of music.
__4. My musical talent has been critiqued in a local publication.
__5. My composition has been recorded.
__6. Recordings of my composition have been sold publicly.
*_7. My compositions have been critiqued in a national publication.
3. Dance
__0. I have no training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Architecture)
__1. I have danced with a recognized dance company.
__2. I have choreographed an original dance number.
__3. My choreography has been performed publicly.
__4. My dance abilities have been critiqued in a local publication.
__5. I have choreographed dance professionally.
__6. My choreography has been recognized by a local publication.
*_7. My choreography has been recognized by a national publication.
4. Architectural Design
__0. I do not have training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Writing).
__1. I have designed an original structure.
__2. A structure designed by me has been constructed.
__3. I have sold an original architectural design.
__4. A structure that I have designed and sold has been built professionally.
__5. My architectural design has won an award or awards.
__6. My architectural design has been recognized in a local publication.
*_7. My architectural design has been recognized in a national publication.
5. Creative Writing
__0. I do not have training or recognized talent in this area (Skip to Humor).
__1. I have written an original short work (poem or short story).
__2. My work has won an award or prize.
__3. I have written an original long work (epic, novel, or play).
__4. I have sold my work to a publisher.
__5. My work has been printed and sold publicly.
Page 15
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
__6. My work has been reviewed in local publications.
*_7. My work has been reviewed in national publications.
6. Humor
__0. I do not have recognized talent in this area (Skip to Inventions).
__1. People have often commented on my original sense of humor.
__2. I have created jokes that are now regularly repeated by others.
__3. I have written jokes for other people.
__4. I have written a joke or cartoon that has been published.
__5. I have worked as a professional comedian.
__6. I have worked as a professional comedy writer.
__7. My humor has been recognized in a national publication.
7. Inventions
__0. I do not have recognized talent in this area.
__1. I regularly find novel uses for household objects.
__2. I have sketched out an invention and worked on its design flaws.
__3. I have created original software for a computer.
__4. I have built a prototype of one of my designed inventions.
__5. I have sold one of my inventions to people I know.
*_6. I have received a patent for one of my inventions.
*_7. I have sold one of my inventions to a manufacturing firm.
8. Scientific Discovery
__0. I do not have training or recognized ability in this field (Skip to Theater
__1. I often think about ways that scientific problems could be solved.
__2. I have won a prize at a science fair or other local competition.
__3. I have received a scholarship based on my work in science or medicine.
__4. I have been author or coauthor of a study published in a scientific journal.
*_5. I have won a national prize in the field of science or medicine.
*_6. I have received a grant to pursue my work in science or medicine.
__7. My work has been cited by other scientists in national publications.
9. Theater and Film
__0. I do not have training or recognized ability in this field.
__1. I have performed in theater or film.
__2. My acting abilities have been recognized in a local publication.
__3. I have directed or produced a theater or film production.
__4. I have won an award or prize for acting in theater or film.
__5. I have been paid to act in theater or film.
__6. I have been paid to direct a theater or film production.
*_7. My theatrical work has been recognized in a national publication.
10. Culinary Arts
__0. I do not have training or experience in this field.
__1. I often experiment with recipes.
__2. My recipes have been published in a local cookbook.
__3. My recipes have been used in restaurants or other public venues.
__4. I have been asked to prepare food for celebrities or dignitaries.
__5. My recipes have won a prize or award.
__6. I have received a degree in culinary arts.
*_7. My recipes have been published nationally
Page 16
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Scoring of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire
1. Each check marked item receives the number of points represented by the question
number adjacent to the checkmark.
2. If an item is marked by an asterisk, multiply the number of times the item has been
achieved by the number of questions to determine points for that item.
3. Sum the total number of points within each domain to determine the domain score.
4. Sum all 10 domain scores to determine the total CAQ score.
Page 17
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS AND NEGOTIATION
SELF-EFFICACY: A STUDY ON NEGOTIATION SKILL
BUILDING AMONG WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS
Veronica Guerrero, California Lutheran University
Judith Richards, California Lutheran University
ABSTRACT
Entrepreneurial education includes the study of desired skills, knowledge and
competencies necessary at various stages of the entrepreneurial continuum as well as effective
pedagogies to address varying learning styles and modes of delivery. Women entrepreneurs
commonly lack key business skills and competencies their male counterparts developed from
professional experiences in corporate environments. This skillset includes negotiation efficacy, a
competence that may be pivotal to launching and sustaining a new venture. During the launch
period, venture financing, recruitment of management teams, and acquisition of resources
require astute negotiation skills to establish a business. Entrepreneurs who are unable to secure
the needed resources may never be able to move their venture beyond the conceptual stage.
Studies show that women face greater challenges than men in securing venture financing and
human capital resources. Therefore, greater negotiation efficacy could prove useful for women
entrepreneurs during this resource building process. This study will explore how women
entrepreneurs can develop increased levels of negotiation self-efficacy to maximize outcomes as
they establish their businesses.
INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship has long been established as a vital component of a growing economy.
In 2011, over 543,000 businesses were created each month (Fairlie, 2012). In the United States,
10.4 percent of the female population between 18-64 years of age are nascent entrepreneurs or
current owners or managers of a business (Kelley, 2011). Women owned businesses account for
$1.2 trillion in sales/receipts and employed 7.6 million workers (Administration, 2010). Such a
powerful economic force requires a myriad of resources. This includes effective training and
development programs. Key stakeholders of this economic force continuously seek to understand
the educational needs of female entrepreneurs, including curriculum requirements, effective
teaching pedagogies, learning assessments, and modes of content delivery (A. C. L. Martinez,
Jonathan; Kelley, Donna J.; Rognvaldur, Saemundsson J.; Schott, Thomas, 2008; Terjesen &
Elam, 2012).
While a growing number of universities now offer degree programs in entrepreneurship,
there are countless entrepreneurial training programs available to both nascent and seasoned
entrepreneurs offered outside academic institutions (A. C. L. Martinez, Jonathan; Kelley, Donna
J.; Rognvaldur, Saemundsson J.; Schott, Thomas, 2008). These programs provide entrepreneurs
with the knowledge, skills and competencies necessary to launch, grow and sustain
entrepreneurial endeavors (Raposo, 2011). Negotiation is a specific interpersonal skill in the
development of social competence and has been recognized as an important skillset for
entrepreneurs (Hoehn-Weiss, Brush, & Baron, 2004). Negotiation skills are typically taught with
Page 18
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
in the context of leadership, communication or conflict management courses (Roy Lewicki,
1997). Due to this recognized skillset, a growing number of universities and professional
training centers now offer negotiation skill building courses and seminars (Kenworthy, 2010;
Thompson & Leonardelli, 2004).
Female entrepreneurs who lack career experiences where the skill of negotiation is
commonly practiced and developed can find the process of negotiation to be intimidating and a
significant obstacle to overcome in the pursuit of their entrepreneurial endeavors (D. M. Kolb,
2009; Martinez, 2008). As such, female entrepreneurs often lack confidence when entering a
situation in the development of their business that requires astute negotiation skills. This impacts
their ability to initiate the behaviors necessary to achieve successful outcomes in negotiating for
resources to support their business.
Self-efficacy has emerged as a proven construct to evaluate learning and change (A.
Bandura, 2012). Self-efficacy is based on Social Learning Theory and can be explained as the
confidence an individual has for persevering through specific tasks in order to achieve desired
performance outcomes (A. Bandura, 1999). The entrepreneurial self-efficacy construct has been
utilized in the field of entrepreneurship education (Hao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005; Wilson, Kickul,
& Marlino, 2007; Wilson, Kickul, Marlino, Barbosa, & Griffiths, 2009). However, there is little
research available on negotiation self-efficacy among female entrepreneurs. This study will
focus on the development of negotiation skills among women entrepreneurs in order to increase
negotiation self-efficacy in their entrepreneurial endeavors.
This research will address the following questions:
1) How do female entrepreneurs assess their confidence in their negotiation skills?
2) What can educators do to increase entrepreneurial negotiation self-efficacy among
women entrepreneurs?
3) What specific task areas among distributive and integrative negotiation strategies
can be most impacted by negotiation skill building?
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Entrepreneurial Education
According to a Special Report by the Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (A.
C. L. Martinez, Jonathan; Kelley, Donna J.; Rognvaldur, Saemundsson J.; Schott, Thomas,
2008), entrepreneurship education is defined as “the building of knowledge and skills either
‘about’ or ‘for the purpose of’ entrepreneurship generally, as part of recognized education
programs at primary, secondary and tertiary-level educational institutions” (p.8). The study of
entrepreneurial education has explored the skills, knowledge and competency needs of
entrepreneurs, as well as learning styles, effective pedagogies and modes of delivery (Honig,
2004; Kuratko, 2005; A. C. L. Martinez, Jonathan; Kelley, Donna J.; Rognvaldur, Saemundsson
J.; Schott, Thomas, 2008; Neck & Greene, 2011; Plumly et al., 2008; Sexton & Bowman, 1984;
Solomon, Fernald, & Dennis, 2003).
Page 19
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Within these areas, the gender-based education needs among entrepreneurs has been
explored extensively (Birley, Moss, & Saunders, 1987). Despite the stronger educational background
of today’s female entrepreneurs, the need for viable and effective educational opportunities to
support their endeavors continues to surface as a critical need (Bowen & Hisrich, 1986; Terjesen &
Elam, 2012). The educational needs include competence in conflict resolution, interpersonal skills
and social competence (Hoehn-Weiss et al. 2004; Plumly et al. 2008).
Gender, Negotiation & Entrepreneurs
Research in the area of gender and negotiation spans almost four decades (Deborah M. Kolb,
2009). Studies find gendered influence in negotiation situations favors men and negatively impacts the
outcomes achieved by women (Miles & Clenney, 2010). Over time, research exploring gender
influence in negotiations has shifted from a focus on female and male behavior differences and
stereotypes to a broader analysis of situational and organizational norms and values (Deborah M.
Kolb, 2009). This new direction explores the nuances of organizational behaviors and structures and
the impact these factors play into negotiation outcomes (Kolb & McGinn, 2009). Through this
perspective, the gendered role of an entrepreneur and its impact on women-owned businesses can be
explored.
Numerous studies provide a context for the gendered role of the entrepreneur (Brush, 1992;
Brush, de Bruin, & Welter, 2009; Brush, Wong-MingJi, & Sullivan, 1999; Gatewood, Brush, Carter,
Greene, & Hart, 2009; Hisrich & Brush, 1984; Manolova, Brush, Edelman, & Shaver, 2012). Similar
to negotiation situations, women entrepreneurs are competing in a landscape dominated by masculine
norms and values (Brush, 2002; Brush et al. 2009; Brush et al. 1999). The gendered role perceptions
are especially challenging for women as they strive to negotiate new venture funding (Nelson,
Maxfield, & Kolb, 2009). Women-owned businesses receive a disproportionate amount of financing
through the venture capital process (Brush, 2002). Most recently, Nelson et al. (2009) explored the
gendered role of entrepreneurs and the impact on venture capital financing. The study found gendered
norms within the venture capital landscape to favor the male entrepreneur. As such, women
entrepreneurs are challenged to assimilate into the culture of the venture capital funding process and
successfully obtain financing for their business (Nelson et al. 2009). This assimilation requires
increased confidence in their ability to negotiate at every stage of a very complex process.
Negotiation Styles, Strategies and Tactics
In a negotiation situation, distributive tactics are used to gain concessions from the other
party plus as much of the potential resources as possible; whereas, integrative tactics involve trade-
offs and satisfying the interests of all the negotiation participants (Tak Wing Yiu; Sai On Cheung,
2012). Distributive situations are also known as zero-sum or win-lose negotiations, whereas one
individual obtains their goal while the other person fails to achieve their respective goal (RJ Lewicki,
Barry, & Saunders, 2011). Conversely, integrative situations are associated with non-zero sum or
win-win negotiation scenarios where both parties can meet or exceed their targeted goal outcomes
(RJ Lewicki et al., 2011). Generally, integrative or collaborative skills are involved in value-creation
which occurs first, while distributive or competitive tactics are employed in the value-claiming stage
which follows (RJ Lewicki et al. 2011). Normally negotiation involves a process of engaging in a
combination of both creating and claiming value strategies (RJ Lewicki et al. 2011). Therefore, it is
imperative that negotiators comprehend how to both create and claim value in order to maximize
their targeted goal outcomes and refrain from leaving unclaimed value on the bargaining table.
Page 20
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Gender stereotypes categorize the male negotiator as strong, dominant, assertive plus rational
versus the female as weak, submissive, accommodating and emotional (Hames, 2011). Women
behave more collaboratively in negotiations and view negotiation in terms of ongoing relationships
with greater concern for feelings and emotions. Thus, women may settle for lower outcomes than
men as a result of their concern for preservation of the relationship. Men tend to utilize more
persuasive tactics, which results in better outcomes than their female counterparts (Stuhlmacher &
Walters, 1999). Amanatullah et al (2010) found that women negotiating on their own behalf are less
assertive, perhaps due to fear of backlash or negative implications. Consequently, women tend to
employ fewer competitive tactics and realize lower outcomes.This is especially relevant for female
entrepreneurs who negotiate on their own behalf.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is at the center of social learning theory developed by Albert Bandura (A.
Bandura, 1977), and has long been a construct used in numerous research studies to evaluate
pedagogical effectiveness (Brady-Amoon & Fuertes, 2011; Celuch, Kozlenkova, & Black, 2010;
Pollack & Lilly, 2008; Sargent, Borthick, & Lederberg, 2011). Bandura (1977) defines self- efficacy
as “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes (p.
79).” The theory provides a basis for predicting behavioral changes and is a proven construct to study
learning and change among adult learners (A. Bandura, 2012).
Self-efficacy is focused on task specific actions taken by an individual to achieve a desired
outcome. An individual’s self-efficacy for a specified task or series of tasks will determine the level of
effort and perseverance put forth in completing the task. According to Bandura (1986), there are
multiple levels of self-efficacy, which include task specific efficacy, domain efficacy, and general or
global efficacy. Key to perceived self-efficacy is one’s knowledge, skills and competencies for a
specific task or task domain. Accordingly, an individual’s perceived competence across a range of
skills and capabilities for a specific task or task domain will impact their behavior for achieving
desired performance levels (A. Bandura, 1986).
Bandura explains, “Performances that call for ingenuity, resourcefulness, and adaptability
depend more on adroit use of skills and specialized knowledge than on effort (P. 371).” Further, the
ambiguity and unpredictability of certain situations may have an impact on an individual’s predicted
performance of a specific task or task domain. Sustained performance for complex tasks, such as
negotiations, that are challenging, that require great effort, and that are not easily replicated may not
automatically strengthen an individual’s perceived self-efficacy (A. Bandura, 1986). Individual self-
efficacy depends on one’s belief that they are able to consistently perform at desired levels with
shifting situational factors (A. Bandura, 2012). Due to the complex and ambiguous nature of
negotiations, self-efficacy theory lends itself well to the evaluation of learning and skill development
to predict an individual’s negotiation performance and belief in their ability to continually and
proactively engage in negotiation opportunities (Roy Lewicki,1997).
Bandura explains, “Performances that call for ingenuity, resourcefulness, and adaptability
depend more on adroit use of skills and specialized knowledge than on effort (P. 371).” Further, the
ambiguity and unpredictability of certain situations may have an impact on an individual’s predicted
performance of a specific task or task domain. Sustained performance for complex tasks, such as
negotiations, that are challenging, that require great effort, and that are not easily replicated may not
automatically strengthen an individual’s perceived self-efficacy (A. Bandura, 1986). Individual self-
efficacy depends on one’s belief that they are able to consistently perform at desired levels with
shifting situational factors (A. Bandura, 2012). Due to the complex and ambiguous nature of
Page 21
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
negotiations, self-efficacy theory lends itself well to the evaluation of learning and skill development
to predict an individual’s negotiation performance and belief in their ability to continually and
proactively engage in negotiation opportunities (Roy Lewicki, 1997).
Mastery of the set of skills and competencies associated with the task will determine the level
of perceived efficacy an individual possesses. Personal mastery can be developed through a series of
experiential activities, social modeling, and verbal persuasion (A. Bandura, 2012). Researchers have
explored the utilization of negotiation self-efficacy to improve sustained individual performance
levels for this complex task domain (Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Miles & Maurer, 2012). The
variety of elements and skills required of the negotiation process combined with interdependence of
individuals involved in a negotiation situation makes learning and mastery of the task domain a
fairly complex and lengthy process.
In a recent study, Miles and Maurer (2012) explored negotiation skill self-efficacy at the
domain level with promising results. Their research concluded that domain level self-efficacy may
be an effective measurement of negotiation self-efficacy due to the complex nature of the tasks
involved and the dynamic, unpredictable nature of negotiation situations. (A. Bandura, 2012).
“In the prototypical self-efficacy paradigm, people judge their efficacy in advance over a
wide range of task demands within a meaningful domain of functioning. This assessment procedure
is designed to identify the pattern, strength and upper limits of perceived self-efficacy (A. Bandura,
1986), P.362.”
Therefore, learning environments that provide opportunities for individuals to participate in
simulated negotiation situations and receive constructive feedback on their performance can be useful
to increasing individual self-efficacy for the negotiation task domain (Gist et al., 1991; Stevens &
Gist, 1997). Activities which support the development of knowledge, skills and competencies in the
specific tasks involved in negotiation (interpersonal communications, empathy, assertiveness, etc.)
may support success in mastery level experiences (Miles & Maurer, 2012). This can be highly
relevant for women entrepreneurs who struggle with confidence and efficacy among complex
entrepreneurial-related tasks and situations (Terjesen & Elam, 2012). “For women, however, the
most significant factors predicting new business activity are perceptions of the self and the
environment, including confidence, expectation of opportunities and fear of failure” (Terjesen &
Elam, 2012, p.17). Female entrepreneurs tend to actively seek educational opportunities to develop
the skills they associate with entrepreneurial success (Wilson et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2009). As
such, educational environments that provide opportunities for women to actively practice and
develop the tasks and behaviors associated with negotiation skills should support the negotiation self-
efficacy development of these entrepreneurial women.
METHODOLOGY
Sample & Data Collection
To collect data for this study, a negotiation skills workshop was developed and offered to
clients of a local nonprofit organization supporting female entrepreneurs. Each workshop was
scheduled for two hours and included a one-hour lecture, a case study role-play simulation and a
debriefing discussion. An announcement was sent out to current clients of the organization inviting
women to sign up for this skill development workshop. Each workshop was limited to 20
participants and the roster was filled on a first-come, first serve basis. There was no charge to attend
the workshop. The absence of a fee helped to drive participation, as most other educational
opportunities offered through the organization are fee-based.
Page 22
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The one-hour interactive lecture on the fundamentals of negotiation included: Strategies of
distributive bargaining, the integrative negotiation process, closing the deal, goals, strategy, planning,
plus creating and claiming value (RJ Lewicki et al., 2011). Thereafter, participants were randomly
placed in triads and asked to study their assigned roles and script in preparation for a negotiation
exercise, WineMaster.com (Subramanian, 2000). The effectiveness of negotiation entrepreneurship
training can be enhanced when an approach is taken in which students’ participate in working
effectively in teams while exercising analytical and communication skills (Plumly et al. 2008). The
role-play involved the potential sale of an e- commerce company, WineMaster.com from its
three entrepreneur owners to a larger e- commerce company, HomeBase, looking to expand
their product-line (Subramanian, 2000). A one-hour time constraint was imposed. To assist the
attendees in engaging in additional preparation that encompassed identifying needs, priorities,
resources and constraints, a planning tool was provided to them entitled, Planning for
Negotiations (R. J. Lewicki, Saunders, & Minton, 2010). In addition, a Deal Value Calculation
Worksheet was provided to the WineMaster.com team while an Acquisition Cost Calculation
Worksheet was distributed to the HomeBase team (Subramanian, 2000). There were four issues to be
negotiated: (1) Number of Shares. (2) Vesting for stock shares. (3) Board Seat. (4) Ownership of a
lawsuit (Subramanian, 2000).
The Negotiation Simulation for the First Workshop
The role-play provided to participants at the first Workshop proved to be too complex for the
entrepreneurs, which struggled with the financial aspects of the exercise that consisted of determining
opening offers, targets, and resistance points (RJ Lewicki et al., 2011). The target point would be
where the team realistically expected to achieve a settlement while a resistance or walk-away point is
where the team would decide that they should stop the negotiation rather than continue (R. J.
Lewicki, Barry, Bruce, Saunders, David M., 2010). None of the teams were able to finalize an
agreement within the time constraints.
The Negotiation Simulation for the Second Workshop
Given the time constraint plus the level of difficulty for the entrepreneurs at the first workshop,
the following changes were incorporated into the second workshop: (1) The respective teams
were provided with their specific walk-away financial targets, thus establishing a zone of possible
agreement (Subramanian, 2000). (2) One of the issues was eliminated, i.e., the ownership of a
potential existing lawsuit against WineMaster.com source. The modifications proved beneficial as
two of the three teams achieved satisfactory outcomes within the zone of possible agreement. The
third group ended the simulation with an impasse because the women were unable to employ neither
satisfactory concessions nor closing techniques.
Measures
A self-efficacy scale was designed to measure the strength of the participants’ perceived
degree of confidence in performing negotiation tactics on a 100-point scale (Bandura, 2006a). The
descriptors utilize single unit intervals ranging from 0 to 100, with 0 equating to cannot do at all, 50
moderately can do and 90-100 signifying they are highly certain they can do (Bandura, 2006b).
The statements included in the self-efficacy scale identify negotiation tactics that are either
distributive or integrative (Tak Wing Yiu; Sai On Cheung, 2012). Question numbers 1 through 5
are associated with distributive negotiating tactics, while questions 6 through 10 are associated with
Page 23
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
integrative negotiating tactics. Self-efficacy has been proven to be a powerful influence affecting
negotiators’ behaviors concerning the different outcomes achieved when distributive or integrative
strategies are employed (Sullivan, 2006).
Participants completed the surveys at the very beginning of the workshop and then were asked
to complete the survey again at the end of the workshop. The survey was paper-based for the first
workshop. All 19 participants completed both the pre and post surveys. At the second workshop, the
surveys were administered online which provided several advantages including, time benefits for
both administration and access to the data for evaluation purposes (Keller, 2012). Twenty-three
of the participants completed the pre-survey and twenty completed the post survey. Pre and post
survey instruments included both open and closed-ended questions. The closed-ended questions
included Likert scales while the open-ended questions were completely unstructured (Keller, 2012).
The design provided participants of the workshops the opportunity to reflect on the learning
experience. In all, 42 women participated in the workshops though not all completed the post-survey.
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Eighty-eight percent of respondents indicated they had not had prior training in negotiations
before taking the workshop. Despite the lack of negotiation training, 91percent of the participants
agreed that negotiation skills were important to them in achieving their career and/or personal
goals. Sixty-six percent of the participants indicated that they engaged in frequently in negotiations
(daily to weekly) and 24 percent indicated being involved in negotiations somewhat frequently
(monthly). The most common type of negotiation situations encountered by the entrepreneurs for
both workshops consisted of: (1) Hiring employees/Job Offer. (2) Vendor or Job Contracts. (3)
Customer Pricing. (4) Financial funding.
After taking the workshop, 87% of the women indicated they either Agree or Strongly Agree
with the statement “When engaging in negotiations, I could be described as confident.” In the pre-
survey, only 54% of the women Agree or Strongly Agree with this statement. Further,
83% of the participants either Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “When engaging in
negotiations, I am likely to achieve my outcome goals” in the post-survey as opposed to 50% in the
pre-survey. These increases support a perceived increase in the efficacy development among the
participants within the negotiation skill domain.
There was very little shift in response to the statement “The relationship is more
important to me than the outcome when I engage in workplace negotiations.” In the pre-survey,
50% of the women indicated they Agree or Strongly Agree with the statement compared to 55% in
the post-survey. This aligns with previous research on the tendencies of women in negotiation
situations (Hames, 2011). Interestingly, 79% of the participants indicated they Agree or Strongly
Agree with the statement “When engaging in negotiations, I could be described as effective in
managing my emotions” in the post survey as opposed to 43% in the pre-survey. This is a significant
shift and could be indicate a realization of how emotions impact their effectiveness in negotiating for
their business.
Overall, the participants appeared to develop confidence in utilizing distributive strategies
and understanding the value these strategies bring to negotiation situations. The women in the
study indicated their intent to implement these strategies in future negotiation opportunities. In Table
1, the data indicates an increased intent to maximize information, implement deadlines and limiting
information provided, including the bottom line. This shift is significant since these particular
strategies and behaviors are typically associated with tactics utilized more effectively by men in
Page 24
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
negotiation situations. The workshops provided an opportunity for the entrepreneurial women to
not only learn how to implement distributive tactics but to better understand how the tactics are
used by others with whom they are negotiating deals.
Table 1
DISTRIBUTIVE STRATEGIES
Answer
Pre Mean
Value (n=42)
Post Mean
Value (n=38)
Pre Standard
Deviation
Post Standard
Deviation
1. I would object to an issue that was unfavorable
to me (Churchman, 1993).
74.27
84.36
19.75
15.77
2. I would maximize the information received and
minimize the information given (Churchman,
1993).
53.05
81
22.15
17.86
3. I would argue in support of my position
(Olekalns, 1996).
70.29
85.07
24.44
17.79
4. I would attempt to increase the time pressure by
indicating the negotiation deadline (Olekalns,
1996).
55.73
76.81
30.33
20.84
5. I would try and hide my bottom line (Barry,
1998).
47.15
78.37
33.37
23.22
The shift among integrative strategies was not as significant among the participants in this
study. This is not surprising since females typically are more comfortable with tactics that focus on
the relationship. Although the women indicated they would be more likely to initiate negotiations
with easy issues and would make more attempts to exchange concessions after taking the
workshop (Table 2), their confidence and practice of seeking to understand differing points of few
and finding clarity around core issues did not shift much.
Table 2
INTEGRATIVE STRATEGIES
Answer
Pre Mean
Value (n=42)
Post Mean
Value (n=38)
Pre Standard
Deviation
Post Standard
Deviation
6. I would begin with easy issues on common ground
(Bordone, 2005).
67.95
88.45
23.44
15.34
7. I would try to identify the core issue and clarify where
each party stood (Bordone, 2005).
72.79
84.45
24.50
16.77
8. I would attempt to exchange concessions with my
opponent (Churchman, 1993).
65.27
85.45
29.20
14.12
9. I would try to understand the situation from my
opponent's point of view (Churchman, 1993).
83.83
84.42
13.64
18.91
10. I would appear patient during the negotiation
(Churchman, 1993).
81.76
87.61
16.39
16.26
Page 25
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Upon responding to the question, “Overall, after taking this workshop, when engaging in
negotiations, I intend to be more.
Table 3
POST SURVEY RESULTS
# Question Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Responses
Mean
1 Persuasive 0 1 3 26 7 37 4.05
2 Confident 0 2 3 19 14 38 4.18
3 Assertive 0 2 5 23 8 38 3.97
4
Likely to achieve my
negotiation outcome
goals
0
1
3
23
11
38
4.16
5
Effective in managing
my emotions
0
2
6
21
9
38
3.97
6 Empathetic 0 0 8 22 8 38 4.00
7 Competitive 0 4 5 19 9 37 3.89
8 Collaborative 0 2 1 19 16 38 4.29
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the small sample size, this study should be considered exploratory and an
opportunity to evaluate whether the insight gleaned warrants further study. Overall, findings
support the idea that negotiation training and development can have a positive impact on the
efficacy of women entrepreneurs when negotiating for their business. The research results suggest
that specific educational pedagogies, i.e., experiential activities involving simulations and
modeling supports the need to develop confidence in the tasks associated with effective
negotiations.
After taking the negotiation workshop, participants overall intended to be more:
Persuasive, confidant, likely to achieve their negotiation outcome goals, competitive and
collaborative in their future negotiations. The participants expressed a likelihood to more
purposely employ both integrative (collaborative) and distributive (competitive) strategies to
respectively create and to claim value. Further, the results of the research corroborates previous
studies showing that entrepreneurship education can have an impact on participant propensity to
learn (Kirby, 2006). Negotiation self-efficacy is important to entrepreneurs and education can
lead to improvements (Kuratko, 2005). As such, educators may want to consider the inclusion of
Negotiation training in designing curriculum for women entrepreneurial programs.
This study can provide support for entrepreneurial educators in designing curriculum for
women entrepreneurs. This skill area is very masculine-based and can be intimidating for
women. Research results that assist in uncovering effective educational methods to drive task
specific negotiation behaviors among women can prove valuable for struggling female
entrepreneurs who lack formal business education and career experience where negotiation
Page 26
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
experience can be most prevalent. Negotiation situations involving the garnering of resources to
launch or grow a business can be very complex. To develop efficacious behaviors in these
situations, women should participate in learning experiences that allow them to actively practice
the tasks associated with successful outcomes. This study provides some support for the use of
case study simulations as effective for women in the area of negotiation skill development.
REFERENCES
Administration, U. D. o. C. E. a. S. (2010). Women-Owned Businesses in the 21st Century. Washington D.C.: US
Department of Commerce.
Bandura. (2006a). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 307-337).
Bandura. (2006b, 2006). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales [307-337].
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1986). The Explanatory and Predictive Scope of Self-Efficacy Theory. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 4(3), 14.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1).
Bandura, A. (2012). On the Functional Properties of Perceived Self-Efficacy Revisited. Journal of Management,
38(1), 9-44. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410606
Barry, B., and Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation.
Personality Social Psychology, 74(2), 345-359.
Birley, S., Moss, C., & Saunders, P. (1987). Do Women Entrepreneurs Require Different Training? American Journal
of Small Business, 12(1), 27-35.
Bordone, R., and Todd, G. S. (2005). Have you negotiated how you'll negotiate? Harvard Business Publishing
Newsletters.
Bowen, D. D., & Hisrich, R. D. (1986). The Female Entrepreneur: A Career Development Perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 11(2), 393-407. doi: 10.5465/amr.1986.4283366
Brady-Amoon, P., & Fuertes, J. N. (2011). Self-Efficacy, Self-Rated Abilities, Adjustment, and Academic
Performance. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(4), 431-438.
Brush, C. G. (1992). Research on Women Business Owners: Past Trends, A New Perspective and Future Directions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(4), 5-5.
Brush, C. G. (2002). The Role of Social Capital and Gender in Linking Financial Suppliers and Entrepreneurial
Firms: A Framework for Future Research. Venture Capital, 4(4), 305-323.
Brush, C. G., de Bruin, A., & Welter, F. (2009). A gender-aware framework for women's entrepreneurship.
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8-24.
Brush, C. G., Wong-MingJi, D. J., & Sullivan, S. E. (1999). Women Entrepreneurs: Moving Beyond the Glass
Ceiling. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 585-586.
Celuch, K., Kozlenkova, I., & Black, G. (2010). An Exploration of Self-Efficacy as a Mediator of Skill Beliefs and
Student Self-Identity as a Critical Thinker. Marketing Education Review, 20(3), 70-80. doi:
10.2753/mer1052-8008200306
Churchman, D. (1993). Negotiation tactics.
Fairlie, R. W. (2012). Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity 1996-2011. Kansas City, Missouri: Kauffman
Foundation.
Gatewood, E. J., Brush, C. G., Carter, N. M., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. (2009). Diana: a symbol of women
entrepreneurs' hunt for knowledge, money, and the rewards of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics,
32(2), 129-144.
Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of Self-Efficacy And Post-Training Intervention on The
Acquisition And Maintenance of Complex Interpersonal Skills. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 837-861.
Hames, D. S. (2011). Negotiation: Closing Deals, Settling Disputes, and Making Team Decisions: Sage
Publications, Inc
Hao, Z., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Development of
Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-1272. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.90.6.1265
Page 27
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. (1984). The Woman Entrepreneur: Management Skills and Business Problems. Journal
of Small Business Management, 22(1), 30-30.
Hoehn-Weiss, M. N., Brush, C. G., & Baron, R. A. (2004). Putting Your Best Foot Forward? Assessments of
Entrepreneurial Social Competence from Two Perspectives. Journal of Private Equity, 7(4), 17-26.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship Education: Toward a Model of Contingency-Based Business Planning. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258-273. doi: 10.5465/amle.2004.14242112
Keller, K. (2012). Marketing Management (14th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.
Kelley, D. J. S., Slavica; Herrington, Mike. (2011). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011 Global Report.
London: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.
Kenworthy, A. L. (2010). Service-Learning and Negotiation. Journal of Management Education, 34(1), 62-87.
Kirby, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge? International
Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness, 35-54.
Kolb, D., & McGinn, K. (2009). Beyond gender and negotiation to gendered negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict
Management Research, 2(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2008.00024.x
Kolb, D. M. (2009). Too Bad for the Women or Does It Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over the Past
Twenty-Five Years. Negotiation Journal, 25(4), 515-531. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00242.x
Kolb, D. M. (2009). Too Bad for the Women or Does It Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over the Past
Twenty-Five Years. Negotiation Journal, 25(4), 515-531. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00242.x
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.
Lewicki, R. (1997). Teaching Negotiation and Dispute Resolution in Colleges of Business: The State of the Practice.
Negotiation Journal, 13(3), 253-269. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1997.tb00131.x
Lewicki, R., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. (2011). Essentials of negotiations: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.,
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, Bruce, Saunders, David M. (2010). Negotiation (Sixth ed.): McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J. W. (2010). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases (6th ed.):
McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.,.
Manolova, T. S., Brush, C. G., Edelman, L. F., & Shaver, K. G. (2012). One Size Does Not Fit All: Entrepreneurial
Expectancies and Growth Intentions of US Women and Men Nascent Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 24(1-2), 7-27.
Martinez. (2008). A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education and Training. Special Report.
Martinez, A. C. L., Jonathan; Kelley, Donna J.; Rognvaldur, Saemundsson J.; Schott, Thomas. (2008). A Global
Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education and Training Special Report. London: Global Entrepreneurship
Research Association.
Miles, E. W., & Clenney, E. F. (2010). Gender differences in negotiation: A status characteristics theory view.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3(2), 130-144. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2010.00054.x
Miles, E. W., & Maurer, T. J. (2012). Advancing validity of self-efficacy in negotiation through focusing at the
domain level. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 23-41. doi:
10.1348/096317910x531744
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of
Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x
Nelson, T., Maxfield, S., & Kolb, D. (2009). Women entrepreneurs and venture capital: managing the shadow
negotiation. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 57-76.
Olekalns, M., Smith, P.L., and Walsh, T. (1996). The process of Negotiating: Strategy and Timing as Predictors of
Outcomes. Organizational Behavorial Hum, 68(1), 68-77.
Plumly, L., Marshall, L. L., Eastman, J., Iyer, R., Stanley, K., & Boatright, J. (2008). Developing entrepreneurial
competencies: A student business. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 11, 17-28.
Pollack, B. L., & Lilly, B. (2008). Gaining Confidence And Competence Through Experiential Assignments: An
Exploration of Student Self-Efficacy And Spectrum Of Inquiry. Marketing Education Review, 18(2), 55-66.
Raposo, M. d. P., Arminda. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Relationship between education and entrepreneurial
activity. International entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 23(3), 453-457.
Page 28
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Sargent, C. S., Borthick, A. F., & Lederberg, A. R. (2011). Improving Retention for Principles of Accounting
Students: Ultra-Short Online Tutorials for Motivating Effort and Improving Performance. Issues in
Accounting Education, 26(4), 657-679. doi: 10.2308/iace-50001
Sexton, D. L., & Bowman, N. B. (1984). ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION: SUGGESTIONS FOR
INCREASING EFFECTIVENESS. Journal of Small Business Management, 22(2), 18-25.
Solomon, G., Fernald, L. W., & Dennis, W. (2003). Self-Identified Management Deficiencies of Entrepreneurs.
Journal of Private Equity, 7(1), 26-35.
Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). EFFECTS OF SELF-EFFICACY AND GOAL- ORIENTATION TRAINING
ON NEGOTIATION SKILL MAINTENANCE: WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS? Personnel
Psychology, 50(4), 955-978.
Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Walters, A. E. (1999). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta?analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 653-677.
Subramanian, G. (2000). WineMaster.com. Harvard Business School Publishing 9-800-249.
Sullivan, B., O'Connor, Kathleen, Burris, Ethan. (2006). Negotiator confidence: The impact of self-efficacy on
tactics and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(567-581).
Tak Wing Yiu; Sai On Cheung, A. M. A. S. C. E. a. L. Y. S. (2012). Application of Bandura's Self-Efficacy Theory
to Examining. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138.
Terjesen, S., & Elam, A. (2012). women entrepreneurship A FORCE FOR GROWTH. International Trade
Forum(2), 16-17.
Thompson, L., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2004). Why negotiation is the most popular business school course. Ivey
Business Journal Online, 1-1.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career
Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(3), 387-
406. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00179.x,
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., Marlino, D., Barbosa, S. D., & Griffiths, M. D. (2009). AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF
GENDER AND SELF-EFFICACY IN DEVELOPING FEMALE ENTREPRENEURIAL INTEREST AND
BEHAVIOR. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 105-119.
Page 29
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND
THE ROLE OF THE REGIONAL UNIVERSITY
Charles Harrington, University of South Carolina Upstate
Ramin Maysami, Jackson State University
ABSTRACT
Regional colleges and universities are integral to providing economic and workforce
development resources that support local and regional economies. Similarly, nascent
entrepreneurs create economic opportunities and build enterprises through deliberate
planning and risk taking. By developing and supporting entrepreneurs, colleges and
universities provide an important catalyst for new businesses and a flexible, creative, and
well-educated workforce. Small businesses create nearly three fourths of the net new jobs
added to the economy every year. Areas in the United States with the highest entrepreneurial
activity in the last decade also had high employment growth, high wage growth, and high
productivity. Entrepreneurs that remain within their local community and are supported by
universities represent significant leverage in potential economic revitalization, particularly in
rural communities that suffers high poverty and unemployment. This paper contributes to a
growing body of academic literature on the role that universities play in the development of
the economy. However, it adds a new dimension by articulating the role that
entrepreneurially engaged regional universities may have in regards to improving their
regional communities.
ENTREPRENUERIAL ACTIVITY AND REGIONALISM
Colleges and universities have long been important components to regional economic
and workforce growth and development. Academic program offerings, faculty engagement
and consultation, and professional development and support for small business have
characterized much of this support. Lately, there has been a growing body of academic
research on the role of universities in regional development. Much of which has been
primarily concerned with two issues: economic analyses of the direct employment effects
associated with staff and student spending in the local economy and technology transfer,
particularly through the creation of spin off companies and the establishment of “industrial”
and “science parks” (Goddard, J.B., Charles, D.R., Pike, A., Potts, G. and Bradley, D. 1994).
However, recent research has shown that universities have not as been successful in creating
sustainable environments that enhance technology transfer and the commercialization of
intellectual property from the university (Bok, 2003; Slaughter and Leslie, 2001; Wright, M.,
Birley, S., and Mosey, S., 2004). In contrast, research universities have been able to capitalize
on generating revenue from their research projects resulting in patents and other methods of
technology transfer (Slaughter and Leslie, 2001). Furthermore, as a result of bias that exists
in academia, regional universities may be viewed as institutions that repress the growth of
human and social capital and they have not been able to capitalize on the large funding
models (Wright, 2004).
Page 30
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
More recently, the role of universities in regional development has been seen as
transcending this narrow technical and economic approach to embrace the role of universities
in enhancing human capital within a region. Examples include certificate and degree
programs in entrepreneurship, workshops and seminars, technical and administrative
assistance, and resource referral, but also including recruiting students from outside the
region and placing them with local companies through internships, co-ops, and part-time
employment; programs of continuing and professional development to enhance the skills and
knowledge base of local managers; embedding international businesses by targeted training
programs and research links; providing a gateway to the broader and international knowledge
base for small and medium enterprises (SMEs); and providing strategic analysis and
leadership within local civic society. The fact that expectations of and opportunities for
colleges and universities is rising can be traced to fundamental shifts in the organization of
production and the related regulation of the economy reflected in the processes of
globalization and localization (Clinton, 2014). Effective engagement in regional economic
and workforce development processes requires that institutions of higher education have an
understanding of these dynamics.
ALLIANCES, ALLEGIANCES, AND REGIONAL DEVELOMPENT
Profound transformation of regional U.S. economies since the mid-1970s, have had
major implications for economic and workforce development strategies. The stability of
production systems, product markets and national corporate relations have been undermined
by the rate of technological change, most notably through the widespread effects of generic
or carrier technologies such as ICTs (information and communication technologies).
Technological innovation and access to resources for innovation (skills, knowledge, and
information) have become necessary and central to the competitive strategy of business and
industry (Kanter, R.M., 1995). Many states have recognized the need to embrace, support,
and sustain technology if they are to maintain employment and growth. As a result, there is a
corresponding need to develop and implement policies and practices in the support and
promote R&D, innovation and technology transfer. Notwithstanding this orientation, the
diversification and internationalization of finance and of the organization of production allied
to innovations in ICTs that permit the flexible reshaping and reconfiguring of investment and
resources, has weakened the bargaining power of smaller, rural, businesses. Global bodies
have encouraged greater freedom in the flow of goods and information such that now it is the
nature of the production locality as much as national market characteristics that determines
investment decisions.
Not only has regional and local intervention and support from universities become
more important to economic and workforce success, there has also been a qualitative shift in
the form of local policy towards nascent entrepreneurship and innovation, and to providing a
more sophisticated environment for mobile capital so as to maximize local value added
(R&D and other high status jobs) (Kuratko, 2005). The importance of this perspective for
managing firms and localities has been promoted by Kanter in her recent book World Class:
Thriving locally in the global economy. According to Kanter (1995), future success will
come to those companies, large and small, that can meet global standards and tap into global
networks. And it will come to those cities and regions that do the best job of linking the
businesses that operate within them to the global economy. Kanter (1995) argues that forces
Page 31
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
of globalization are so powerful that communities must connect the global and the local and
create a culture conducive to attracting and retaining investment. The challenge is to find
ways in which the global economy can work locally by unlocking those resources which
distinguish one place from another. The basic argument presented here is that colleges and
universities are uniquely positioned to provide technical, skills, and knowledge capital assets
within the global economy – elements central to the success of regional entrepreneurial
endeavors. Kanter (1995) posits that higher education faculty provide human capital elements
that she has titled the “3 Cs” - Concepts, Competence and Connections. Kanter suggests that
university faculty "can help grow these assets by offering innovative capabilities, production
capabilities, quality skill, learning, networking and collaboration." (Kanter, R.M., 1995). The
location of universities in regions is a powerful facilitator of these processes - concepts links
to research; competence links to teaching and connections links to the transfer to and from a
region of people and networks grown out of universities. In order to realize such policy shifts,
local policy has needed to be innovative and entrepreneurial itself, drawing on a wider
network of resources, negotiating and building alliances between local and state government,
universities, private sector interests and non-profit organizations.
Regional economic and workforce success has been characterized by a variety of
explanatory models, but with a common agreement as to the factors underpinning success:
agglomeration economies, economies of scale and network effects, economies of scope, trust,
networks of small firms and supportive institutions. Central to successful innovation are the
structures and modes of interaction between knowledge producers, disseminators and users.
Since technologies embody both people and ideas as well as tangible products, transactions
involving extensive interaction and iterative communication are widely believed to be
necessary as a means of facilitating exploitation. This 'organized' method of exchange can
encompass both physical technology and/or employees - including producers, disseminators
and users - moving between institutions while maintaining close linkages for instance,
between universities and linked 'spin-off' companies.
COLLABORATION IN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS
In the context of the role of universities in economic development, the most helpful
approach to operationalize these ideas can be found in the concept of the learning economy
which emerges from studies of innovation (Lundvall, B-Å., Johnson, B., 1994). Lundvall
stresses the importance of interactive learning as a basis for innovation and change in local
and regional developed economies. The learning economy is defined as an economy where
the success of individuals, firms and regions, reflects the capability to learn; where change
and transformation is rapid and old skills quickly become antiquated and new skills are in
demand; where learning includes skills and the building of competencies, not just increased
access to information; where identifiable and measurable learning is occurring in all aspects
of the economy, not just high-tech sectors; and where net job creation is in knowledge
intensive sectors (high R & D, high proportion with a university degree, and job situation
worsens for the unskilled) (Venkataraman, 2003).
Within the learning economy different modes of knowledge can be identified. First,
know what, that is facts and information. Second, know why, - principles and laws necessary
to reduce trial and error; third, know how - the skills and capability to do something, skills
that are traditionally acquired within the workplace; and finally know who - information
Page 32
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
about who knows how to do what and the social capability to establish relationships to
special groups in order to draw on their expertise. Each of these different forms of learning
employs different channels for information exchange. In the case of know what and why,
formal learning in school and universities is the normal channel. Know how depends on
practical experience through tacit learning (for example, through apprenticeships) but also
increasingly through network relationships with industrial and commercial partners. Finally,
know who is learned from social interaction via professional associations, day to day dealings
with customers, sub-contractors and a wide range of other actors and agencies.
Focusing on network knowledge, this is a hybrid form of knowledge that is neither
completely public nor completely private. It depends on trust and is characterized by
reliability, honesty, and co-operation. Network knowledge refers not only to the skills of
individuals but the transfer of knowledge from one group to another to form learning systems
- the institutional infrastructure of public and private partnerships. Because network
knowledge is highly dependent on interpersonal relations, it can most readily be developed
within a particular region. Florida (1995) argues, 'To be effective in this increasingly
borderless global economy, regions must be defined by the same criteria and elements which
comprise a knowledge-intensive firm: continuous improvement, new ideas, knowledge
creation and organizational learning.
Regions must adopt the principles of knowledge creation and continuous learning;
they must in effect become “knowledge-creating or learning regions.' Key to such a learning
region is the human infrastructure and the institutional mechanisms that foster interactive
learning, and a central part of this infrastructure, in terms of the reproduction and adaptation
of human resources, are universities. In the case of human capital, universities have
traditionally produced new graduates for a labor market dominated by large employers, with
little concern for SMEs or graduate retention in local labor markets. This traditional model
often fails to respond to changing patterns of employer demands such as the decentralization
of large corporations into clusters of smaller business units and the greater role of smaller
businesses as sub-contractors, suppliers, franchisees etc. with subsequent implications for the
skills required of graduates and the location of the recruitment decision. At the same time
regional agencies are promoting graduate retention initiatives as a way of upgrading higher
level local skills. This demand side changes the expansion of service provided by higher
education with rising numbers experiencing the need to change career later on in life is
leading to a growing supply of local students for undergraduate and graduate programs.
Notwithstanding these developments, little is known about the flow of students
through higher education into local labor markets and how this relates to the overall
economic performance of regions. Yet a key characteristic of the learning region is the way in
which knowledge is transferred from one group to another to create learning systems. In
terms universities this includes knowledge of the appropriate skills and competencies
required of the workforce. What constitutes "appropriate skills" will depend on the overall
regional development strategy, be it indigenous development based on local enterprise,
exogenous development based on attracting inward investment, or a combination of the two,
for example by upgrading local suppliers to support and "embed" inward investment. In this
context, the analogy between regions and organizations is one where the shift from personnel
management based around handling individual employment contracts and personal
development shifts to human resource management which harnesses people development to
the strategic objective of the organization.
Page 33
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The key question here becomes: "Does the region include human resource
development as part of its overall strategy?" The question raises specific challenges
concerning the type of training programs, the qualification of institutions best placed to
provide the program, and where within the region should this provision occur. An obvious
requirement of a regional human resource strategy is information about future labor market
needs. Given the long time lag between the identification of needs and the development of the
necessary skills, one of the fundamental requirements of a learning region is the sharing of
intelligence between higher education and training and human capital development programs
and employers. Because of the inherent difficulties of forecasting future demands, the
inevitable priority will be to ensure that education and training systems produce people with
the flexibility to respond to stronger changing circumstances alongside specific skills and
competencies required by particular industries and/or occupations.
Although research has focused on the direct contribution of universities to the
economic success of the regions in which they are located, a further question concerns the
indirect contribution of universities to the social and cultural basis of effective democratic
governance and, ultimately, economic success. For example, Putnam (1993) has shown the
strong relationship between a civic culture and institutions (understood as "norms of
reciprocity and networks of civic engagement") and wider socio-economic performance.
Regions are rich in such networks 'encourage social trust and co-operation because they
reduce incentives to defect, reduce uncertainty, and provide models for future co-operation'.
In so far as universities are by tradition classically "civic" institutions, they can play a key
role in the development of the cultural and political determinants of socio-economic success.
A key challenge is to enhance the role which universities, including their faculty and
students, play in the development of such networks of civic and entrepreneurial engagement,
and in the wider political and cultural leadership of their regions.
THE ROLE AND SCOPE OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENGAGEMENT
The implications of many of the processes outlined here have yet to be successfully
resolved by universities. Kanter (2001) refers to four aspects of globalization - simultaneity,
multiple choice, pluralism and resource mobility. Simultaneity refers to the fact that we can
no longer rely on spatial and temporal lags associated with the diffusion of new education
products and services - universities can no longer hide behind the barriers of time and space.
Multiple choice or by pass refers to the way in which local or regional monopolies are broken
down, such that universities can no longer rely on local monopoly in education as new
providers using distance learning techniques enter their realm. Pluralism is the process by
which old centers of power are continually challenged such that many universities can no
longer guarantee their dominant position as students and firms exert consumer choice (Shane,
2004). Finally, mobility, particularly of the elite or so called “cosmopolitans”, are shifting
their place of residence and business more frequently, and this applies no less in academia
than in the private sector. In the face of these threats, universities have no option but to
attempt to tie down the global within the local; in so doing they will find willing partners in
the public and corporate sector where similar pressures are being exerted. Universities must
reconsider their administrative structures and management processes and practices in the light
of this challenge.
Page 34
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The scale of the challenge should not be underestimated. Developing and evolving the
curriculum to rapidly changing needs of employers and labor markets provides a good
example. In terms of Lundvall's description of the learning economy, universities have been
good at the know what and know why aspects of education, and are improving on the know
how aspects through integration of the tacit learning acquired via work placements into
teaching programs, the know who dimension is altogether more problematic. Progress on this
front implies a deep relationship between research and teaching based on the sharing of the
network knowledge of the research endeavor with students at all levels. Additionally, there is
a need for a paradigm shift in the academy that will allow for human and social capital to be
cultivated within the walls of the academy and encourage economic development within the
region (Binks M., Starkey, K., and Mahon, C. L., 2006).
Further research has shown that by modifying their curriculum to meet the needs of
the labor market, universities are able to cultivate human and social capital with greater skill-
sets and they create value-added networks for current students and alumni as well as faculty
members (Sager B., Fernandez, M. G., and Thursby, M., 2006; Westhead P. and Matlay, H.,
2006; and Mosey S., Lockett, A., and Westhead, P., 2006). Universities should move away
from their traditional approach and utilize a more constructivist approach which would build
their core curriculum around entrepreneurship education (Binks, M., Starkey, K. and Mahon,
C. L., 2006). Graduates of an entrepreneurship based education would have the relevant skill
sets (human and social capital) that would allow them to support and leverage economic
development in their local communities and build a sustainable competitive advantage for
their region. Schumpeter offered the insight that economic development is a result of
entrepreneurship (Schumpeter, J. A., 1934); hence, in order to promote economic
development universities must provide a service to their region by promoting and sustaining
entrepreneurial education.
When considering their relationship with industry in a regional context universities
should consider themselves as being located at the head of a supply chain, devoted to the
creation, provision, and application of knowledge. The distribution channels for this
knowledge are through students (projects and placements), graduates and post-graduates, as
well as through published and contract research and consultancy that leads to new and
improved technologies and management processes. But unlike a business enterprise situated
in a similar supply chain position, universities devote relatively little resources to marketing
their products in the form of graduates or to responding to signals about what the market
wants. They simply have a sales department, in the form of the career placement offices,
which have limited ability or mechanisms to match output (quality, quantity or specification)
to customer needs.
The market place is, of course, extremely complex because it is composed of the
totality of organizations that currently, or might in the future, employ graduates. At one end
of the spectrum are tightly regulated vocational markets like medicine, architecture, law and
engineering. (Arguably universities have been overly responsive to this segment of the
market to the extent of having been 'captured' by some professional bodies). At the other end
of the spectrum are the largely unarticulated demands of SMEs. If universities are to play a
more active role in economic development, it is vital that they understand the market segment
and inform their teaching activities by its needs. This means not simply responding to
currently expressed wants but actively researching the dynamics underlying changing
employer needs and treating students as clients and employers as the end customer.
Page 35
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
In some countries the fact that this approach is far from universal can be partly
attributed to the student funding regime which currently rewards "production" but not "sale".
In consequence the marketing function is often poorly developed. If universities were in part
rewarded for the delivery of graduates into employment, including local employment, they
would clearly have an incentive to put more effort into marketing and economic
development. But becoming a market led organization requires a major change in university
culture. It implies a strong sense of institutional purpose whereas universities remain
dominated by academics whose principle professional loyalty is to their national or
international invisible college rather than their parent institution. The new production of
knowledge involving partnerships with the users and beneficiaries of research also transcends
institutional boundaries and is difficult to integrate with formal institutional planning and
resource allocations. New patterns of strategic alliances between academic groups based on
complimentary competencies may occur but not between institutions within a region. In
short, improved integration of universities with regional development will not be readily
achieved by top down planning mechanisms at either the institutional or regional level but by
ensuring the various stakeholders in the regional development process - education and
training providers, employers and employers organizations, trade unions, economic
development, labor market agencies and individual learners - have an understanding of each
others role and the factors encouraging or inhibiting greater regional engagement. For
example understanding that universities and labor market agencies work in the context of
national higher education policy and labor market training targets, employers of global
competitive pressures to downsize, outsource etc. and students of personal financial
constraints on investment in learning.
While local and state governments may seek to increase the engagement of
universities with economic development, the means of achieving this goal is far from clear,
particularly in the context of the value universities attach to individual autonomy. Such
autonomy is associated with a diversity of institutions, often on a regional as well as a
national scale that has evolved historically. For those universities with a strong research base,
regional issues may be of minor concern. Such institutions see themselves as serving the
region by attracting students from outside with those who remain adding to the local stock of
human capital. They also contribute to attracting inward investment and possibly embedding
that investment through training and research links. Such institutions thus contribute to
exogenous regional development. Nevertheless, even within research based universities,
certain departments, degree programs and research activities have strong regional linkages.
Alongside such institutions in most regions are those where serving the local and
regional communities remains a central component of their mission. Regional universities
also have national and international links that can provide gateways for local firms and
students to the wider world. Finally, between these extremes there may be universities which
are trying to develop their research base in selected fields and in the process devoting
considerable resources to "going global". Determining which particular mix of institutions
and more importantly mix of teaching and research programs would best underpin the
economic development of a region is a key challenge. With the right form of incentives in
terms of university assessment procedures and leadership development programs, it might be
possible to ensure that the appropriate signals reach and are embedded into the programs of
individual universities.
Page 36
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
With regards to assessment, in addition to the inclusion of regional criteria into
national teaching and research assessment exercises, a strong case can be made for
establishing a regional assessment process undertaken by universities themselves. Such
assessments could be done with the aid of consultants with expertise in economic
development and higher education management. These assessments would cover institutional
organization, teaching, research and other services actually or potentially relevant to regional
needs. The outcome of the assessment could be linked to a development fund for pump
priming initiatives and which aims to enhance the university's contribution to economic
development. Institutions would be free to participate in such a scheme and/or confine it to
those parts of their activity that they deem to be regionally relevant. Alongside such
assessments it would be necessary to have a program of human resource development
targeting those individuals inside and outside of universities that have boundary spanning
functions relevant to joint working on economic development. One of the key factors of
success in regional partnerships merely act as gatekeepers between different
organizations/networks. A small number of staff in universities, labor market and economic
development agencies and dynamic businesses hold positions in which extra-organizational
networking is a central feature of their job.
Those people who hold such position will do so by virtue of their personal and
professional competency; they nevertheless require developmental support for their own
professional improvement, and moral support from individuals and groups around them. For
the most part the necessary skills and attributes are intuitive and learned through practice;
however the growing need for such people suggests that some more fundamental training and
support is required. Relevant skills include: networking; facilitation; working with alternative
cultures; setting up projects; planning and contract management; raising financial support;
personal organization; supervision and personal support techniques; insight into
organizational policies and dynamics. The establishment of such a development program for
individuals engaged in the university/regional interface would be a further small positive step
towards its improved management. Furthermore this interface would allow for an
"entrepreneurial development system" to be created that would be regional in scope and
systematic in approach (Lyons, T.S., 2003). As a result economic development in the regions
would be enhanced due to these sustainable partnerships. Similar strictures apply to other
stakeholders concerned to raise regional competitiveness.
CONCLUSION
Technological innovation and access to resources for innovation (skills, knowledge,
and information) have become vitally necessary and central to the competitive strategy of
business and industry. Not only has regional and local intervention and support become more
important to economic and workforce success, there has also been a qualitative shift in the
form of local policy towards nascent entrepreneurship and innovation, and to providing a
more sophisticated environment for mobile capital so as to maximize local value added
(R&D and other high status jobs, successful and therefore growing firms).
The location of universities in regions is a powerful facilitator of these processes -
concepts links to research; competence links to teaching and connections links to the transfer
to and from a region of people and networks grown out of universities. As a result, the
academy will need to undergo an elemental paradigm shift that will allow for human and
Page 37
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
social capital to be cultivated within the walls of the academy and encourage economic
development within the region (Binks, M., Starkey, K. and Mahon, C. L., 2006).
The distribution channels for this knowledge are through students (projects and
placements), graduates and post-graduates, as well as through published and contract research
and consultancy that leads to new and improved technologies and management processes.
Regional universities should take the lead in creating economic development in their regions
by supplying the knowledge chain that will produce the human capital and by increasing the
quality of life which will provide the social capital.
By fostering entrepreneurism, regional universities provide the catalyst for new
businesses and a flexible, creative, motivated, and well-educated workforce that will enhance
the economic development of the regions they serve. In essence, the expectations of and
opportunities for colleges and universities is rising and can be traced to fundamental shifts in
the organization of production and the related regulation of the economy reflected in the
processes of globalization and localization. The ‘ivory tower’ of traditional academe has to
continue to move forward and embrace the concept of leading their regions to become more
entrepreneurial and competitive in this global economy.
REFERENCES
Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (eds.) (1994). Globalization, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Binks, M., Starkey, K. and Mahon, C. L. (2006). Entrepreneurship education and the business school.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(1), 1-18.
Clinton, A. (2014). The Role of Higher Education in Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Nova Science
Publishers.
Florida, R. (1995). Toward the learning region. Futures, 27(5), 527-536.
Goddard, J.B., Charles, D.R., Pike, A., Potts, G. and Bradley, D. (1994). Universities and Communities.
Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, London.
Kanter, R.M. (1995). World Class: Thriving Locally in the Global Economy. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Kuratko, D. (2005). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends, and Challenges.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 (5), 557-598.
Lundvall, B-Å. (ed.) (1992). National Systems of Innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive
learning. Pinter, London.
Lundvall, B-Å., Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 2, 23-42.
Lundvall, B-Å. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national
systems of innovation, in G. Dosi et al, Technical Change and Economic Theory. Frances Pinter,
London.
Lyons, T.S. (2003). Policies for creating an entrepreneurial region. Main Streets of Tomorrow: Growing and
Financing Rural Entrepreneurs, a conference sponsored by the Center for the Study of Rural America,
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 97-106.
Mosey, S., Lockett, A., and Westhead, P. (2006). Creating network bridges for university technology transfer:
The medici fellowship programme. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(1), 71-91.
Putnam, R.D. with Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R.Y. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in
Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Sager, B., Fernandez, M. G., and Thursby, M.(2006). Implications of a multi-disciplinary educational and
research environment: Perspectives of future business, law, science, and engineering professionals in
the technological innovation: generating economic results program. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 18(1), 57-69.
Page 38
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Shane, A. (2004). Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation. Edward Elgar
Publishing, Ltd., Cheltenham.
Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L.L. (2001). Expanding and Elaborating the Concept of Academic Capitalism.
Organization 8(2): 154-161.
van der Meer, E. (1996). Knowledge on the Move: The University as a Local Source of Expertise. University of
Amsterdam.
Venkataraman, S. (2003). Regional Transformation through technological entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 19, (1), 153-167.
Westhead, P. and Matlay, H. (2006). Skills associated with employment positions in SMEs and favourable
attitudes toward self-employment: longitudinal evidence from students who participated in the Shell
Technology Enterprise Programme. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(1), 93-124.
Wright, M., Birley, S., and Mosey, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship and university technology. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 29, 235-246.
Page 39
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE DRIVERS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS -
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY AMONG INFORMATION
SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDENTS
Natalie Kaltenecker, Institute for Information Systems and New Media
LMU Munich
Christian Hoerndlein, Institute for Information Systems and New Media,
LMU Munich
Thomas Hess, Institute for Information Systems and New Media,
LMU Munich
ABSTRACT
The increase in entrepreneurial activity around the globe has been accompanied by a
growth in the number of articles on entrepreneurship education. However, to date there has been
little research on entrepreneurship education in the field of information technology in general
and on software entrepreneurship education in particular. To address this research gap, we
conducted an empirical study based on an extended model of the Theory of Planned Behavior
among Information Systems and Computer Science students. We found that Attitude, i.e. whether
a person evaluates founding a software company favorably or unfavorably, is the main driver of
Information Systems students. In contrast, having a Business Idea is the most influential factor
for Computer Science students. A more detailed analysis identified the perception of
entrepreneurship as an opportunity for self-fulfillment and a high monetary reward, along with
not associating entrepreneurship with a high risk of failure, to have the strongest impact on
Information Systems students’ Attitude. Based on our findings, we derive recommendations for a
more data-driven curriculum design and discuss the implications for developing more
entrepreneurially oriented courses tailored to both groups of students.
INTRODUCTION
There has recently been an enormous increase in information technology (IT) and high-
tech entrepreneurship. This growth in entrepreneurial activity has even been likened to the
“Cambrian explosion” 540 million years ago, where life on earth started to flourish and became
much more varied (The Economist, 2014). This expansion of entrepreneurship has not remained
limited to Silicon Valley, a region which is often depicted as the archetype of an entrepreneurial
region and has given birth to many successful web-based companies. Rather, cities all over the
world, such as London in England, Tel Aviv in Israel, or Bangalore in India now compete for
establishing themselves as entrepreneurial hubs (The Economist, 2014; USA Today, 2014).
This upswing in entrepreneurial activity has been accompanied by a considerable
increase in the number of articles published on entrepreneurship education in the last decade
(Kozlinska, 2011). Entrepreneurship education has been defined as “the process of providing
Page 40
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
individuals with the ability to recognize commercial opportunities and the insight, self-esteem,
knowledge and skills to act on them” (Jones & English, 2004, p. 416). Although IT has played a
major role in more recent entrepreneurial activity (Foster & Lin, 2003) and entrepreneurship has
been increasingly taught to non-business students (Conners & Ruth, 2012), there is surprisingly
little research on entrepreneurship education tailored to IT students. However, given the
development that we have outlined above, IT students are likely to represent a population of
students where entrepreneurship education is likely to meet fertile ground.
Existing research in the IT context mostly focuses on the need for more practice-oriented,
also termed “hands-on”, courses when teaching entrepreneurship (Abrahams & Singh, 2010;
Foster & Lin, 2003; Kor & Abrahams, 2007; Kuckertz, 2013; Schilling & Klamma, 2010). This
development resonates with the shift from passive and formal modes of transferring knowledge
to an approach more focused on “learning by doing” (Kozlinska, 2011) and “experiential
learning” (Welsh and Tullar, 2014). An important aspect that could guide the design of such
entrepreneurship courses for IT students has received no explicit attention. It has been
acknowledged that differences in prior knowledge can impact the learning of entrepreneurial
content (Foster & Lin, 2003). Besides, recent research has called for a more detailed analysis on
how to maximize the effectiveness of designing curricula for non-business majors (Conners &
Ruth, 2012). However, there is a lack of research on how different entrepreneurial intentions are
formed in two highly relevant groups regarding their intention to establish a company in the IT
industry: more business-oriented Information Systems (IS) students and more technically
oriented Computer Science (CS) students. Owing to their different educational backgrounds,
these two groups of students might be driven by different factors to engage in entrepreneurial
activities.
Furthermore, “n the rapidly changing field of Information Systems, educational
programs must be continually reevaluated and revised” (Noll & Wilkins, 2002, p.143). However,
research that follows this recommendation (Bell, Mills & Fadel, 2013; Carlsson, Hedman &
Steen, 2010; Crowley, 2003; Topi et al., 2010) neither addresses entrepreneurial aspects nor
differentiates between IS and CS students. Our empirical study focuses on this research gap and
thereby hopefully contributes to a data-driven curriculum design in entrepreneurial IT education.
Our study focuses on students’ intention to start a new business in the software industry.
This focus is especially relevant as potential entrepreneurs in the software industry face low
barriers to entry (Giarratana, 2004). Improvements in software entrepreneurship curricula might
therefore be able to foster entrepreneurial activity more easily than in other fields.
The remainder of this study is structured as follows. First, we present the theoretical
background and related work identifying the research gap that our study strives to close. We then
provide details on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), from which we derive our hypotheses
and formulate our exploratory research question. After explaining the scale development and the
item refinement process, we present the results of the comparison between the groups of CS and
IS students. We conclude with a summary of the results and by pointing out the study’s potential
limitations and avenues for further research.
Page 41
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
BACKGROUND
Definitions
Given the abundance of different fields of entrepreneurship research, it is difficult to
derive an all-embracing definition of the term “entrepreneurship”. We follow the widely cited
definition of entrepreneurship as “the identification, evaluation, and exploitation of
opportunities” (Shane, 2012, p. 12). In our study, the focus is on creating a new enterprise in the
software industry as a specific institutional arrangement of entrepreneurship, as opposed to other
possible arrangements such as in-firm entrepreneurship (Shane, 2012).
This study’s focus lies on “opportunity entrepreneurship”. Stephan (2008) suggests that
individuals engage in entrepreneurial activity to take advantage of an opportunity and achieve
their personal goals. Our understanding of an entrepreneur is therefore based on a behaviorally
oriented definition, which states that “entrepreneurship is concerned with the discovery and
exploitation of profitable opportunities” (Stephan, 2008, p. 10).
We draw on Jones and English’s (2004, p. 416) definition of entrepreneurship education.
They define entrepreneurship education as “the process of providing individuals with the ability
to recognise commercial opportunities and the insight, self-esteem, knowledge and skills to act
on them. It includes instruction in opportunity recognition, commercialising a concept,
marshalling resources in the face of risk, and initiating a business venture”. This definition is
also in line with our study’s focus, as it relates entrepreneurship education to the specific purpose
of creating a company. By concentrating on university-educated IT students as potential
entrepreneurs, we limit our study to a subset of individuals who might aspire to become
entrepreneurs in the software industry. However, this emphasis allows us to analyze this group in
more detail and derive important implications for future entrepreneurship education programs.
Related Work and Research Gap
In entrepreneurship research, two influential streams can be distinguished: person-centric
and intention-based models. In the first stream, research’s main interest lies in the entrepreneur
as a person and his/her motivation to create a company. The trait approach, which focuses on an
entrepreneur’s character traits, has dominated this perspective (Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
Nevertheless, no character traits that lead to the foundation of a business have been clearly
identified, and behavioral scientists could not determine definitive correlations between
personality traits and specific entrepreneurial behavior (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Consequently,
the trait approach has been frequently criticized.
The second stream, intention-based models, has evolved as the most frequently used type
of models explaining entrepreneurial behavior. In these models, intention mediates the influence
of specific factors on actual behavior. Ajzen’s (1991) TPB and Shapero’s model of the
entrepreneurial event (Shapero, 1982) are two important instances of these intention-based
models.
Krueger et al. (2000) state that entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, emphasizing
opportunities over threats, which clearly indicates an intentional process. Further, they underline
Page 42
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
that in the psychological literature, intentions have proven to be the best predictor of planned
behavior. Ajzen (1991) argues that intentions depend on perceptions of personal attractiveness,
social norms, and feasibility. Shapero (1982), on the other hand, shows that entrepreneurial
intentions depend on the perceptions of personal desirability, feasibility, and propensity to act.
Over time, especially Ajzen’s TPB has become widely accepted in entrepreneurship research
(Engle et al., 2010; Shook & Bratianu, 2010; Kautonen, van Gelderen & Tornikoski, 2013).
However, the TPB has not been applied to study IT students’ intention to become
entrepreneurs in general, nor the difference between CS and IS students in particular. Our study
therefore sets out to close this research gap.
RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Intentions toward a behavior are the best predictor of a particular behavior, even more
effective than attitudes, beliefs, personality, or demographics (Krueger et al., 2000). In addition,
MacMillan and Katz (1992) emphasize that understanding intentions is particularly valuable
where the phenomenon is rare, obscure, or involves unpredictable time lags. Clearly, this seems
to be the case for entrepreneurial activity. Ajzen (1991) states that intentions predict behavior
and serve as a conduit to better understand the act itself. Thus, intention is an important predictor
concerning new venture creation. TPB is widely accepted in entrepreneurship research as a way
to understand the intention to found a company (Stephan, 2008).
The TPB postulates three conceptually independent determinants of intention: Subjective
Norm, Attitude, and Perceived Behavioral Control. The first predictor, Subjective Norm, relates
to whether those in an individual’s social environment deem the respective behavior desirable.
The second predictor, Attitude, relates to whether a person evaluates the behavior under
consideration favorably or unfavorably. The third antecedent of Intention is the degree of
Perceived Behavioral Control, which refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of conducting
behavior, and is assumed to reflect past experience, as well as the anticipated impediments and
obstacles. TPB predicts that the more favorable the Attitude, the stronger the Subjective Norm,
and the greater the Perceived Behavioral Control, the higher an individual’s intention to conduct
the behavior under consideration (Ajzen, 1991).
Based on TPB’s general propositions, we derive the following hypotheses:
H
1
Subjective Norm has a positive impact on students’ Intention to start a new business in the
software industry.
H
2
Attitude has a positive impact on students’ Intention to start a new business in the software
industry.
H
3
Perceived Behavioral Control has a positive impact on students’ Intention to start a new business
in the software industry.
In addition to the three predictors that we derived from the TPB, we propose that an
additional factor has a positive impact on students’ Intention. Shane and Venkataraman (2000)
emphasize the role of the “entrepreneurial opportunity”, which itself is an objective
phenomenon, and which is often discovered by actively searching for it (Boyles, 2012).
Page 43
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
However, not everybody is aware of this opportunity. Business ideas, on the other hand, are
“plans created and enacted in response to the entrepreneurs’ beliefs about opportunities” (Shane,
2012, p. 15). These “decisions about how to recombine resources are subjective and creative”
(Shane 2012, p. 16) and can be considered a means to exploit an entrepreneurial opportunity.
Based on these considerations, one can assume that students who are able to develop a specific
business idea based on an entrepreneurial opportunity are more likely to start a company than
their peers who lack a specific business idea. We therefore propose:
H
4
Having a Business Idea has a positive impact on students’ Intention to start a new business in the
software industry.
Figure 1 summarizes the four hypotheses in a path diagram based on the TPB’s base
model extended by the construct Business Idea.
Figure 1. Research Model
From an exploratory perspective, we set out to compare the importance of the four factors
(i.e. the respective path coefficients) for the groups of CS and IS students. Identifying inter-
group differences could subsequently guide decisions to develop more effective entrepreneurship
curricula based on the most influential factors. We therefore formulate the exploratory research
question:
Do CS and IS students differ regarding the relative impact that the four factors –
Subjective Norm, Attitude, Perceived Behavioral Control, and Business Idea – have on their
Intention to start a new business?
Attitude
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Business
Idea
Intention
Subjective
Norm
H
4
(+)
H
3
(+)
H
2
(+)
H
1
(+)
Page 44
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND ITEM REFINEMENT
Conceptualization and Development of the Indicators
The constructs in the TPB are usually measured reflectively and have been used in
previous research. We could therefore adapt items that had already been developed and validated
before (cf. Venkatesh et al., 2003). We also measured the constructs Subjective Norm, Attitude
and Perceived Behavioral Control formatively. This approach helps us to draw a general
conclusion (MacCallum & Brown, 1993) regarding whether students believe that their social
environment approves of their decision to start a new company (Subjective Norm), whether these
students view entrepreneurship positively (Attitude), whether they believe that they are capable
of starting a new company (Perceived Behavioral Control), and the specific influences from
which these beliefs stem.
In order to generate formative indicators, we first analyzed studies which had already
developed a measurement instrument based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. The formative
items from these studies were collected and, if necessary, complemented with information from
qualitative interviews with several founders of software companies. Based on these steps, the
formative indicators were chosen to measure Subjective Norm, Attitude, and Perceived
Behavioral Control.
In contrast, the construct “Business” Idea had not yet been operationalized and validated.
As we could not revert to an already verified construct in the literature, we created seven
reflective items and tested their unidimensionality and reliability in a pre-test (see the following
paragraph). Sample items are “I have discovered a market niche in the software industry” or “I
have an idea for a software product or a software service”.
Refinement of the Indicators
A pre-test (N=21) was undertaken in December 2011 to test the developed questionnaire
in preparation for the main survey and to ensure that all items are understood by survey
participants as intended. The pre-test generated positive feedback concerning the questionnaire’s
length and comprehensibility. Based on the pilot study, we slightly revised the survey (e.g.
changing the Likert scale from seven to five points and reducing the constructs’ number of
reflective items to three items per construct), but maintained the basic structure of the survey.
We found that multicollinearity was not an issue regarding the formative indicators, as the
variance inflation factors were smaller than 10 and the condition indices smaller than 30
(Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001). Additionally, principal component analysis showed that
all seven reflective items of the Business Idea load on a single factor.
SURVEY RESULTS
In this section, we first describe the survey setting. We thereafter provide the results of
the descriptive analysis, the analysis of the measurement and path model, and the group
comparison of CS and IS students. To account for measurement errors, we employ structural
equation modeling instead of multiple linear regression for the data analysis (Chin, 1998). Since
Page 45
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
our study focuses on identifying the key drivers of entrepreneurial intentions, we employ partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), which also makes no distributional
assumptions such as multivariate normality (Hair, Ringle & Sarstedt, 2011).
Setting and Descriptive Results
We distributed a two-page printed questionnaire to students from three German public
universities regarding their intention to start a new company in the software industry. We
focused on bachelor and master-level students, who participated in nine selected lectures during
the 2011/2012 winter term. To achieve a high response rate, the questionnaire was handed out to
the students at the beginning of the lecture. The data was collected during January and February
2012. A total of 598 questionnaires were distributed and 402 completed responses were received,
yielding a response rate of 67.2%. The sample (N=402) consists of 295 (73.4%) male and 107
(26.6%) female students in IS (44.3%), CS (20.4%), and Media Informatics (27.9%).
Furthermore, 7.4% of the respondents took CS as a minor. 24.4% of the students pursued a
master’s and 75.6% a bachelor’s degree. In addition to the constructs specified above, the
questionnaire included control variables for the students’ backgrounds and sociodemographics.
Test of the Reflective Measurement Model
The reflective measurement model for the five constructs, which were measured on a 5-
point Likert scale, was assessed in terms of their respective factor loadings. The range of each
construct’s factor loadings is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Range of Factor Loadings per Construct and Student Group
Factor Loadings
IS students CS students
Intention (3 items)
.948 - .970 .945 - .969
Subjective Norm (3 items) .911 - .927 .869 - .918
Attitude (3 items) .866 - .904 .791 - .852
Perceived Behavioral Control (3 items) .846 - .930 .815 - .870
Business Idea (7 items) .832 - .949 .867 - .922
To assess the internal consistency reliability and convergent validity, we calculated the
composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) scores. The results are shown
in Table 2.
Table 2
CR and AVE per Construct and
Student Group
CR AVE
IS students CS students IS students CS students
Intention
.97 .97 .92 .92
Subjective Norm .94 .93 .84 .81
Attitude .91 .86 .78 .68
Perceived Behavioral Control .91 .89 .78 .73
Business Idea .97 .97 .81 .82
Page 46
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The analysis shows that the factor loadings are all well above .7, indicating indicator
reliability (Hair et al., 2011) for both groups of IS and CS students. The CR scores range
between .86 and .97, exceeding the recommended threshold of .7 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The
AVE values lie between .68 and .92. Since the square root of all AVE values also exceeds the
respective inter-construct correlations, there is strong evidence of convergent and discriminant
validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Analysis of the Path Model
We analyzed the path model for each of the two groups using the SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle,
Wende & Sinkovics, 2005) software. The values displayed in Figure 2 were obtained using
casewise replacement, which resulted in samples of 175 IS students and 81 CS students. The
significance levels were obtained by bootstrapping with 5,000 samples.
Figure 2. Path Coefficients for IS and CS Students
(*** p < .001; ** p < .01)
Attitude, Perceived Behavioral Control, and Business Idea were found to have a
significant impact on IS students’ Intention. Attitude and Business Idea have a significant impact
on CS students. Although we therefore have to reject H1, we can accept H2, can partially accept
H3 (as Perceived Behavioral Control only has an impact on IS students), and can accept H4.
To answer the exploratory research question of whether the factors’ impact on Intention
differs between the two groups, we conducted a group comparison of the path coefficients based
on Henseler and Fassott (2010) for the constructs Attitude, Perceived Behavioral Control, and
Business Idea. The results of this analysis can be found in Table 3.
Attitude
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Business
Idea
Intention
R² = 64.2%
Subjective
Norm
Information Systems Students
.255***
.227***
.550***
-.035
Attitude
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Business
Idea
Intention
R² = 47.7%
Subjective
Norm
Computer Science Students
.560**
-.011
.216**
.113
Page 47
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 3
Group Comparison of Path Coefficients
Paths
Path Coefficients
p values for difference
IS students CS students
Intention
.550 .216 .000
Subjective Norm .227 -.011 .016
Attitude .255 .560 .001
The analysis shows that Attitude and Perceived Behavior Control have a stronger impact
on IS students’ Intention than on CS students’ Intention, while Business Idea has a stronger
impact on CS students.
As we integrated the Business Idea as a fourth construct into the TPB, we analyzed the
magnitude of this construct’s impact on Intention by calculating the effect sizes for both groups
of students. Business Idea had a small to medium effect of .13 on IS students and a large effect
of .52 on CS students (Chin, 1998; Cohen, 1988). We therefore conclude that integrating the
Business Idea construct can considerably increase TPB’s explanatory power regarding students’
behavioral intention.
Drivers of IS Students’ Attitude
Attitude was identified as having the strongest impact on IS students. Since we also
measured the construct with formative indicators, we identified the strongest drivers for Attitude
by means of a redundancy analysis (Cenfetelli & Bassellier, 2009) by analyzing the formatively
measured construct’s impact on the reflectively measured construct. T-values were generated for
the formative items through the SmartPLS bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 samples. The
results are displayed in Table 4.
Table 4
Drivers of Attitude (*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; n.s.: not significant)
Formative Indicators Indicator Weights
Self-fulfillment 0.650
***
High monetary reward 0.388
*
High risk to fail (negatively coded) 0.313
*
Working Independently 0.131
n.s.
High social status 0.038
n.s.
High work load (negatively coded) -0.035
n.s.
Only the perception of a high risk of failure, an opportunity for self-fulfillment, and the
chance of a high monetary reward were found to be significant drivers of Attitude; working
independently, achieving a high social status, and the expectation of a high work load were not
found to have a significant impact. The analysis of the variance inflation factors, which were all
below 1.4, indicated no issues of multicollinearity that might have confounded our analysis.
Page 48
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS
Discussion
The results of our study show that different factors drive IS and CS students’ intention to
start a company in the software industry. Attitude emerged as the most influential factor for IS
students, whereas having a Business Idea turned out as the most important aspect for CS
students.
The results could have consequences for the development of entrepreneurship curricula
for IT students. Above all, different factors drive IS and CS students’ entrepreneurial intentions.
Therefore, designing effective curricula for both groups needs to take these differences into
consideration. Entrepreneurship courses for IS students should focus on fostering a positive
Attitude towards founding a company. In general, this may include presenting entrepreneurship
as an attractive career choice for students after graduation. More specifically, recommendations
based on the three formative drivers that were found to shape students’ Attitude may hold the
most promise. First, courses should emphasize that being an entrepreneur is not necessarily a
high-risk endeavor if certain steps are followed, such as creating a detailed business plan,
conducting a thorough market and competitor analysis, and choosing co-founders who
complement one’s strengths and competences. Second, entrepreneurship should be clearly
depicted as a great route to fulfill one’s own dream. Entrepreneurship provides a unique
opportunity to build a company that delivers products or services that a founder can be proud of.
Third, our analysis shows that not only intrinsic factors motivate potential founders. The
expectation of a high extrinsic monetary reward turned out to be a driving factor. Therefore,
courses could improve students’ Attitude by providing examples of founders who sold their
company successfully. However, even the drivers that were not found to be significant can guide
future entrepreneurial curricula. For example, courses do not need to downplay an entrepreneur’s
high work load, as it has no negative impact on students’ Attitude.
In contrast, having a Business Idea emerged as the strongest predictor for CS students.
Since having a Business Idea combines technological knowledge with the knowledge of how to
exploit it commercially, courses for CS students should not be limited to only teaching the latest
technologies. Rather, courses should present these technologies in a business-relevant way and
clearly show how these technologies might affect current businesses’ operations and may have
the potential to disrupt whole industries. We explicitly do not demand that CS courses be less
technical. Instead, we recommend embedding the technical content in a way that fosters the
perception of technology as a means and not as an end. This could mean a stronger focus on the
teaching of business models (Osterwalder, Pigneur & Tucci, 2005) and how new technologies
might have an impact on them. Moreover, courses in creative thinking could help CS students
connect different areas of their expertise in order to create innovative entrepreneurial ideas.
From a theoretical point of view, our study also indicates that studies that analyze
entrepreneurship can benefit from including the construct Business Idea in TPB’s base model.
Since the Business Idea turned out to be a significant predictor for both groups of students,
incorporating this construct can increase the predictive power of models based on the TPB.
Page 49
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
In summary, we hope that our study can provide valuable input for more data-driven
curriculum development efforts. It can help tailor entrepreneurship curricula to the specific needs
of different groups of IT students, which can in the long run influence a nation’s entrepreneurial
activity positively.
Limitations
There are some potential limitations to our study. First, we confined our study to students
of three German public universities. Further research with a more representative sample could
reveal whether this might have biased the results. Second, a replication of our study in different
countries could show if our results are culturally influenced, especially whether IS and CS
students in other countries are driven by different factors or whether aspects of the German
culture, such as Germany’s higher uncertainty avoidance and lower individualism compared to
the USA (Hofstede, 2001), could have had an impact. Third, since our study is cross-sectional, a
longitudinal study could show whether students’ intentions to become entrepreneurs actually
translate into starting a new company and whether the patterns identified as driving
entrepreneurial intentions turn out to be valid predictors. Fourth, although IS and CS students are
an important source of entrepreneurial activity in the software industry, our study did not include
students from other fields, such as business, economics, or mathematics. Further research should
examine whether these groups of students might be motivated by other factors than IS and CS
students. Fifth, regarding the impact of the Business Idea on students’ entrepreneurial intentions,
we would like to point out that the creation of a Business Idea is only one among the first steps in
a process-oriented view of teaching entrepreneurship. Our study therefore neglects the steps
following the creation of a Business Idea, among which are conducting a feasibility analysis,
creating a business plan, and developing financial forecasts (Neck & Greene, 2011). Further
research could analyze how an initial idea changes as it is developed throughout the different
steps and how this affects entrepreneurial intentions.
In addition to these points, further research could try to shed light on the costs of
developing an IS or CS entrepreneurship major and the question whether there would actually be
enough qualified teachers available. Further questions worth pursuing might be if deans would
be in favor of such a specialized major, if there is even enough demand, and whether our
findings hold true for the whole IT industry and not only for software companies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the following professors who made it
possible for us to distribute the survey in their classes: Prof. Martin Bichler, Prof. Andreas Butz,
Prof. Heinrich Hußmann, Prof. Helmut Krcmar, Prof. Richard Lenz, and Prof. Claudia Linnhoff-
Popien. The authors also appreciate the useful suggestions and comments received at the
American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) 2013, where a first version of this paper
was presented.
Page 50
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
REFERENCES
Abrahams, A. & T. Singh (2010). An Active, Reflective Learning Cycle for E-Commerce Classes: Learning about
E-commerce by Doing and Teaching. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(4), 383-390.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
179-211.
Bell, C., R. Mills & K. Fadel (2013). An Analysis of Undergraduate Information Systems Curricula: Adoption of the
IS 2010 Curriculum Guidelines. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 32(2), 73-94.
Boyles, T. (2012). 21st Century Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities and Entrepreneurial Competencies: A Model for
Undergraduate Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 15, 41-55.
Carlsson, S.A., J. Hedman & O. Steen (2010). Integrated Curriculum for a Bachelor of Science in Business
Information Systems Design (BISD 2010). Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
26(24), 525-546.
Cenfetelli, R.T. & G. Bassellier (2009). Interpretation of Formative Measurement in Information Systems Research.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 33(4), 689-708.
Chin, W.W. (1998). Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 22(1), vii-xvi.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Conners, S.E. & D. Ruth (2012). Factors Influencing Success in an Introductory Entrepreneurship Course. Journal
of Entrepreneurship Education, 15(SI), 63-73.
Crowley, E. (2003). Information System Security Curricula Development. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on
Information Technology Curriculum, 249-255.
Diamantopoulos, A. & H.M. Winklhofer (2001). Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to
Scale Development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269-277.
Engle, R.L., N. Dimitriadi, J.V. Gavidia, C. Schlaegel, S. Delanoe, I. Alvarado & B. Wolff (2010). Entrepreneurial
Intent: A Twelve-country Evaluation of Ajzen's Model of Planned Behavior. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16(1), 35-57.
Fornell, C. & D.F. Larcker (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Foster, J. & A. Lin (2003). Individual Differences in Learning Entrepreneurship and Their Implications for Web-
Based Instruction in E-Business and E-Commerce. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 455-
465.
Giarratana, M.S. (2004). The Birth of a New Industry: Entry by Start-ups and the Drivers of Firm Growth: The Case
of Encryption Software. Research Policy, 33(5), 787-806.
Hair, J.F., C.M. Ringle & M. Sarstedt (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 19(2), 139-151.
Henseler, J. & G. Fassott (2010). Testing Moderating Effects in PLS Path Models: An Illustration of Available
Procedures. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W.W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least
Squares (pp. 713-735). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences – Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations
Across Nations (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, C. & J. English (2004). A Contemporary Approach to Entrepreneurship Education. Education + Training,
46(8), 416-423.
Kautonen, T., M. van Gelderen & E.T. Tornikoski (2013). Predicting Entrepreneurial Behaviour: A Test of the
Theory of Planned Behaviour. Applied Economics, 45(6), 697-707.
Kor, P. & A. Abrahams (2007). Teaching Information System Students to be Entrepreneurs: A dot.com Case Study.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20, 497-517.
Kozlinska, I. (2011). Contemporary Approaches to Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Business Management,
4, 205-220.
Page 51
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Krueger Jr, N.F., M.D. Reilly & A.L. Carsrud (2000). Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of
Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.
Kuckertz, A. (2013). Entrepreneurship Education: Status Quo and Prospective Developments. Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 16(SI), 59-71.
MacCallum, R.C. & M.W. Brown (1993). The Use of Causal Indicators in Covariance Structure Models: Some
Practical Issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 533-541.
MacMillan, I. & J. Katz (1992). Idiosyncratic Milieus of Entrepreneurship Research: The Need for Comprehensive
Theories. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 1-8.
Neck, H.M. & P.G. Greene (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of
Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.
Noll, C. & M. Wilkins (2002). Critical Skills of IS professionals: A Model for Curriculum Development. Journal of
Information Technology Education: Research, 1(1), 143-154.
Osterwalder, A., Y. Pigneur & C.L. Tucci (2005). Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the
Concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 1-40.
Ringle, C.M., S. Wende & R.R. Sinkovics (2005). SmartPLS 2.0. Retrieved September 4, 2013, fromhttp://smartpls.de
Schilling, J. & R. Klamma (2010). The Difficult Bridge between University and Industry: A Case Study in
Computer Science Teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 367-380.
Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR Decade Award: Delivering on the Promise of Entrepreneurship as a
Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10-20.
Shane, S. & S. Venkataraman (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. The Academy of
Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Shapero A. (1982). Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (pp. 72-90). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Stephan, U. (2008). Culture of Entrepreneurship (C-ENT)/Kultur der Selbständigkeit: Konzeptualisierung und erste
Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung einer unternehmertumsförderlichen Kultur. Marburg,
Germany: Philipps-Universität Marburg.
Shook, C. L., & C. Bratianu (2010). Entrepreneurial Intent in a Transitional Economy: An Application of the Theory
of Planned Behavior to Romanian Students. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
6(3), 231-247.
The Economist. (January 18, 2014). A Cambrian Moment. Retrieved September 16, 2014, fromhttp://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21593580-cheap-and-ubiquitous-building-blocks-digital-
products-and-services-have-caused
Topi, H., J.S. Valacich, R.T. Wright, K. Kaiser, J.F. Nunamaker Jr., J.C. Sipior & G.-J. de Vreede (2010). IS 2010:
Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems. Communications of
the Association for Information Systems, (26)18, 359-428.
USA Today. (August 10, 2014). Look Out, Silicon Valley: London Tech is on the Rise. Retrieved September 16,
2014, fromhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/08/10/london-tech-scene-on-the-rise/13665993/
Venkatesh, V., M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis & F.D. Davis (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology:
Toward a Unified View. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Wanberg, C.R. & J.T. Banas (2000). Predictors and Outcomes of Openness to Changes in a Reorganizing
Workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.
Welsh, D.H., & W.L. Tullar (2014). A Model of Cross Campus Entrepreneurship and Assessment. Entrepreneurship
Research Journal, 4(1), 95-115.
Page 52
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Page 53
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE ‘BUSINESS CONCEPT’ COMPETITION AS A
‘BUSINESS PLAN’ ALTERNATIVE FOR NEW AND
GROWING ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS:
WHAT’S THE BIG IDEA?
Robert Laud, William Paterson University
Stephen Betts, William Paterson University
Sam Basu, William Paterson University
ABSTRACT
‘Business Plan’ competitions are a proven way to create buzz for entrepreneurship
programs. They generate significant excitement and interest among students, and increase
awareness of the program among the larger community. Unfortunately the expense, complexity
and resource requirements of such competitions puts them out of the reach of new and small
programs. In this presentation we will discuss the benefits and challenges of business
competitions. We will also describe an innovative approach - the ‘Business Concept’
competition, which emphasizes the basic ideas driving a business without requiring a full
‘Business Plan’. Additionally we will outline some of the essential activities and key lessons
learned from our competition process. The proposed method has been successfully piloted. We
found that it fostered creativity and involvement among students, strengthened relationships with
other schools within the university and resulted in positive publicity for our new entrepreneurship
program.
INTRODUCTION
‘Business Plan’ competitions foster creativity and involvement among students, and
publicity for an entrepreneurship program. Unfortunately the complexity and expense of such
competitions make them out of the reach of small and new programs. In this paper we will
describe an alternative for growing programs that still generates significant excitement and
interest - the ‘Business Concept’ competition - as successfully run at William Paterson
University.
The primary difference between our ‘business concept’ and ‘business plan’ competitions
is in the degree of rigor and development. In the ‘concept’ competition, the primary idea was of
utmost importance and the judging criteria were very flexible. Participants did not have to fully
develop all aspects of the idea. The initial stages of the competition required only a one page
description. The intent was that by leaving the requirements simple, students with all types of
ideas at any stage of development could enter. The result was a large number and variety of
ideas submitted, and a lot of interest across the school. From approximately 80 entries, 8
finalists were chosen. They worked with faculty mentors to more fully develop their idea. Each
Page 54
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
of the finalists was given a half hour to present their idea to an audience of judges, students,
faculty and invited guests.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS
Entrepreneurship programs are among the fastest growing initiatives in modern colleges
and universities (Mattare, 2010; Yu & Man 2009). For the student, they tap into the dream of
starting a business and watching it grow and develop. The programs provide training and
opportunities to make those dreams come true. To the college the programs mean a chance to
connect with the outside community, to facilitate meaningful projects, attract the best and
brightest students and gain prestige and recognition. There are examples of successful and
prospering entrepreneurship programs that can serve as aspirational reference points. The
challenge is getting from a standing start to becoming an established program. This can be easy
if a donor or set of donors share the college’s vision and will bankroll the program as it grows.
More often than not, benefactors get involved as a result of initial success, not before. So how
does a college with few resources develop a program? In this paper we will address one of the
strategies used by William Paterson University – a ‘Business Concept’ competition.
An ideal entrepreneurship program has significant funding, external stakeholders in a
variety of fields, such a venture capital, that get involved in programs and activities, students
interested in entrepreneurship and professors who teach and conduct research about
entrepreneurship, as well as provide assistance to entrepreneurs at various stages in their venture,
perhaps even a business incubator to help start businesses. However very few, if any, schools
can jump directly to this ideal state. The challenge is to develop and implement a plan to get
there.
Successful established programs often have a business plan competition. Planning is a
key success factor in small entrepreneurial firms (Botha & Robertson, 2014), Nunn & McGuire,
2010; Becherer & Helms, 2009; Hormozi, Sutton, McMinn & Lucio 2002). Nascent
entrepreneurs are more than 2 ½ times more likely to follow through on starting a business if
they have a business plan (Liao & Gartner, 2006). There also is wide agreement that
entrepreneurial education need to have experiential components (Vincent & Farlow, 2008), and
business plans are experiential learning (Kraus, Harms & Schwarz, 2006). There are a great
variety of these competitions. Some allow participation from external stakeholders, others are
limited to students. Some competitions have a theme or are associated with a cause such as
water (Anonymous, 2010a) or urban enterprise (Anonymous, 2011b). Companies have found
innovation competitions to generate ideas that they can sponsor (MacCormack, Murray &
Wagner, 2013). Many have significant prize money. The University of Maryland annual
competition gives away $75,000 (Anonymous, 2012b). Competitions often have an organization
or individual that sponsors it. The Florida Venture Forum sponsors a clean energy business plan
competition with $200,000 in prize money (Anonymous, 2012a). Another characteristic of these
competitions is that they are ongoing and repeated year after year. A culture and set of
expectations builds around them, as do ancillary activities. The University of Maryland has over
30 initiatives related to entrepreneurship (Anonymous, 2011a). Unfortunately such competitions
Page 55
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
are difficult to start if there is no existing culture and little available funding to support it. The
creative solution that we implemented was a business concept competition that concentrated on
the basic idea and did not require extensive planning and analysis on the part of the student to
participate.
‘BUSINESS CONCEPT’ COMPETITION
Our business concept competition was to be an outlet for our students to show their
entrepreneurial side. For the College of Business it is meant as a stepping stone or even a launch
pad to reaching higher level goals. From the start we had competing objectives and concerns.
We would like the competition to succeed, but we do not want to risk an embarrassing failure.
We would like to have many participants, but we also want high quality ideas. We ultimately
want involvement from a variety of internal and external stakeholders in our program, however
we are cautious about outside involvement in our first foray into this type of activity.
The key to the success of the competition was careful and deliberate planning. From the
start a set of coordinated goals and plans were developed. A flow chart and detailed task list was
developed. Table 1 shows the categories of tasks. Each category had a number of distinct
actionable tasks. As an example the ‘Flyer’ tasks are listed. It tells what needed to be done, in this
case where the flyers are distributed. It also included explanations and details such as who the
contact person is in the copy center, as well as the person on the ‘team’ that is responsible and
due dates. The core ‘team’ was two professors, a graduate assistant and additional help from the
dean’s office and other professors as needed. Activities were tracked and adjustments made along
the way.
One basic question was ‘can we get involvement?’ In order to foster involvement of both
students and faculty, workshops were given for each. There were class visits in targeted courses
informing students of the competition, as well as flyers and announcements. These were
augmented by workshops for developing ideas. Professors from a broad array of courses and
disciplines were recruited to help. Professors were needed initially to encourage students to
participate. Some professors held small preliminary competitions in their own courses in order
to generate student interest, others gave students extra credit. Once the finalists were
determined, professors volunteered to mentor students. Lastly, professors were encouraged to
bring their classes to the final presentations.
Table 1
BUSINESS CONCEPT COMPETITION TASK LIST
TASK Activity Responsibility Due Date Comment
Entrepreneurial Brief
Flyer*
Print and distribute Xerox
Contact John Smith
(x1234) for gloss copies
Post in COB, Main
Campus
Scott-other 9/19 Need Rajiv to id
additional temp
help
Page 56
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Student paper Post in student newspaper Scott 9/28
Other locations Any other places for
students--Announcements
Scott 9/21
Main campus faculty Send to main campus
faculty—through deans
Sam 9/2--22 Visits by Sam
and Bob
Plasma Screens
Website
Discussion -Main
Campus Deans
Class Visit
Competition Sponsorship
Professional Enrichment
Application Review
Judging
Awards
Other Advertising
Nov. 17 Event
*note – subtasks items under ‘flyer’ are filled in. Each other task had similar sub-tasks.
The goal was to keep the barriers to participate as low as possible. The rules to the
contest were readily available online. A full business plan was not necessary, just a
‘business concept’ – a good idea that could be developed. An online application process
made it easy to enter the competition. The initial application required very little information,
although participants could augment the one page form. There were over 75 entries, each
representing one or a team of students. A panel of professors reviewed the entries and narrowed
it down to 8 finalists. The finalists were a cross-section of the kinds of ideas submitted. Among
the finalists were A riding academy, a robot that cleared snow and an online digital school
yearbook. The eventual winner was ‘Beyond Bingo’, a place for senior citizens who lived on
their own where they could go on a daily basis to participate in all of the activities usually
found in an assisted living facility.
Finalists were paired with professors to develop their concepts. Some students
worked with 3 or 4 faculty members. Several classes of MBA students gave feedback to
practice presentations. The Assistant Director of a local New Jersey Small Business
Development Center stepped up to coach finalists, and the Dean of the College of Business
helped with the financial analyses. On the day of the competition the finalists gave 20-30
minute presentations to a panel of judges and an audience. The judges were local bankers, a
small business advisor and a faculty member. The audience varied from about 50 people to
over 120 at times during the day, including faculty, students and administrators from all
over the campus as well as guests. The winning concept was awarded $4,000, the runner up
got $2,000 and the third place got $1,000. The competition was an unqualified success – the
quality of the projects exceeded all expectations and the attendance at the event was greater
than anticipated.
Page 57
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
After the competition, faculty, administration and graduate assistants met to ‘debrief’ and
discuss the future. It was important to discuss the process to see what worked, what needs
improvement and to make preliminary plans for the next year’s competition.
1. Start small. Full business plan competitions are too big. A ‘concept’ competition allows for greater
participation
2. Plan everything. Use process flow charts. Have regular status reports.
3. Remain flexible. Things will not go as planned. Be prepared to make adjustments.
4. Recruit key faculty members from a variety of disciplines. Have them talk about it in class, mentor the
finalists and encourage their students to attend the final competition.
5. Keep barriers to participation as low as possible. Require a good idea, not a full plan. Have a one
page entry form
6. Hold workshops for students and faculty. This generates interest and greater quantity and quality of
entrees.
7. Follow up. Do not let this be a one-time event. Start planning on how to improve it for next time.
Our fist competition was held in the Fall semester. We intend on holding our second
competition in the Spring. The planning is already underway. Currently we are seeking external
partners that can be involved. In our first competition we avoided this because we did not know
the quantity and quality of the ideas that would be submitted. We chose Spring to give more
lead time for everyone involved. In retrospect we accomplished all that we wanted to and more.
Students have already begun to discuss their ideas with us. This indicates to us that we were
successful in moving towards creating awareness and establishing an entrepreneurial culture.
REFERENCES
Anonymous (2012a, Feb 28). The Florida venture forum to host the 2012 statewide collegiate business plan
competition. Business Wire,
Anonymous (2012b). First look west searches for university students for clean energy business competition
Manufacturing Close - Up.
Anonymous (2011a, Nov 4). White house recognizes Mtech's David Barbe as champion of change. PR Newswire.
Anonymous.(2011b, Oct 4, 2011). MillerCoors prepares to award $150,000 to small business owners, extends
application deadline PR Newswire.
Anonymous (2010a). Imagine H20 water prize announces winners. American Water Works Association Journal,
102(5), 59-59.
Becherer, R., & Helms, M. (2009). The value of business plans for new ventures: Company and entrepreneur
outcomes. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 20(2), 80-96.
Botha, M., & Robertson, C. L. (2014). Potential entrepreneurs' assessment of opportunities through the rendering of a
business plan. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 17(3), 249-265.
Hormozi, A., Sutton, G., McMinn, R., & Lucio, W. (2002). Business plans for new or small businesses: Paving the
path to success. Management Decision, 40(7), 755-763.
Kraus, S., R. Harms & E. Schwarz (2006). Strategic planning in smaller enterprises - new empirical findings.
Management Research Review, 29(6), 334-344.
Liao, J., & W. Gartner (2006). The effects of pre-venture plan timing and perceived environmental uncertainty on the
persistence of emerging firms. Small Business Economics, 27(1), 23-23.
Page 58
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
MacCormack, A., Murray, F., & Wagner, E. (2013). Spurring innovation through competitions. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 55(1), 25-32.
Mattare, M. (2010). Use of self 101: The case for teaching personal development in the entrepreneurship curriculum.
New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 17-28.
Nunn, L., & McGuire, B. (2010). The importance of a good business plan. Journal of Business & Economics
Research, 8(2), 95-105.
Vincett, P., & Farlow, S. (2008). "Start-a-business": An experiment in education through entrepreneurship. Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 274-288.
Christina W.M. Yu, & Thomas W.Y. Man. (2009). Social interaction and the formation of entrepreneurial
characteristics. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(8), 595-613.
Page 59
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
PUBLISHING CHILDREN’S BOOKS WITH
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS: REFLECTING ON
STUDENT INNOVATION THROUGH THE LENS OF
TONY WAGNER
Stephanie A. Fernhaber, Butler University
Erin Albert, Butler University
Angela Lupton, Butler University
ABSTRACT
Given the interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurship, a model is shared for writing,
illustrating, and publishing children’s books through a collaborative/interprofessional team of
students and faculty mentors across colleges at Butler University. While recognizing the intrinsic
benefits of having diverse groups of students work on self-defined projects, the creators of this
model also recognized the alignment between such a project and the potential for nurturing
innovation. Specifically, such an approach is consistent with the seven survival skills and need
for an innovation mindset put forth by Tony Wagner (2010, 2012). Therefore, we present our
project through the lens of his framework. The process for implementing the project is discussed,
as well as challenges and ways in which the project could be customized for other universities.
INTRODUCTION
In his examination of the global achievement gap, Tony Wagner (2010) outlined a set of
seven survival skills needed by our youth in order to contribute in today’s workplace and society:
critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration across networks and leading by influence,
agility and adaptability, initiative and entrepreneurialism, effective oral and written
communication, accessing and analyzing information, and curiosity and imagination. In his 2012
book, Creating Innovators, Wagner followed up through emphasizing how these survival skills
needed to be coupled with the development of an innovation mindset. The irony of the situation
is that many educational institutions themselves are not focusing on these skillsets in their
strategies for instilling the skills in their students. While rigid academic structures and the
increased pressure for quantifiable evidence of learning may be partly to blame, being able to
develop learning environments that embrace all of these survival skills is difficult and requires
us, as academicians, to become innovators ourselves. It requires pushing against the existing
structure and design of our classes and departments to experiment, fail, learn, and start all over
again.
We propose that entrepreneurship serves as a context in which such a learning
environment can be developed, and offer a model developed at Butler University where
collaborative teams of college students and faculty mentors work together to write, illustrate, and
publish children’s books. This project started in 2007 as an innovative senior thesis project
within the College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences and the Jordan College of the Arts, and has
since evolved into an annual project involving four colleges (College of Pharmacy and Health
Sciences, College of Business, College of Education, and Jordan College of the Arts). Five books
Page 60
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
have been successfully published, and one has failed (see Exhibit A for a complete list). Along
the way, learning has taken place—for both the students and faculty mentors involved. In the
space that follows, we share the background and history of the project. We then outline how this
project meets the survival skills and innovation principles put forth by Tony Wagner. Finally, we
discuss challenges and possible extensions.
OVERVIEW OF THE CHILDREN’S BOOK PROJECT
The original idea for the children’s book project dates to 2007, as an innovative option
for pharmacy students to use for their capstone course, which requires a health-focused project
that is presented at the annual Butler University Undergraduate Research Conference. In this
initial year, only pharmacy students were involved, and art students co-developed the cover art
for this project through a class collaboration. In subsequent years, education students were added
in order to leverage their respective expertise. Eventually, business students were added.
Students from each of these areas bring a distinct set of skills to the creation and production of
children’s books on health-related topics. Pharmacy students provide research-based knowledge
of health issues; education students utilize their understanding of high-quality children’s
literature and curriculum development; business students provide the understanding of business
planning, marketing, and fundraising; and art students bring their experience with the illustrative
process. While the books have primarily focused on health topics for pre-Kindergarten to early
elementary-aged students, we have recently experimented with other topics and age levels with a
book this year that focused on Indiana history, in line with and endorsed by the Indiana
Bicentennial Commission and designed specifically for the fourth-grade state history curriculum.
All of the book projects, from 2008 through 2015, are listed in Exhibit A.
The book project crosses semesters and currently runs on an annual cycle starting in May.
The initial task is determining the number of book projects being taken on, as well as their
general topics, and finding faculty mentors. In our experience, faculty members have been
excited to participate in the project because of the opportunity to work with colleagues outside
their typical areas of expertise. The involvement of multiple faculty members also spreads out
the time commitment and allows fresh ideas into the process. The ultimate goal is for the time
commitment to be minimal on the part of the faculty mentors, as this is truly meant to be a
student-designed and student-driven project. However, faculty do respond to bi-weekly team
updates, provide guiding thoughts and questions, assist in editing, review any legal agreements
with the publisher, and help to mediate the inevitable challenging conversations that are part of
the creative process. The student recruitment process varies by college; some colleges issue a
general call for applications and others invite specific students to participate. In the College of
Pharmacy and Health Sciences, where the project is part of a specific course, interest in this
project type has become so high that students now have to apply by submitting an application
and writing sample. In the other colleges, students can receive independent study credit and/or
the opportunity to position themselves uniquely in the job market because of the experience.
When applicable, the grading of the course also varies by college. For example, business
students are assessed by their level of professionalism, a final reflection paper, and the
development of a portfolio showcasing the experience that is meant to be shared with potential
employers.
The kick-off meeting for each project takes place in May. This is an important event
because it is the first time the entire team is together. This meeting incorporates the sharing of
Page 61
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
previous book projects' histories and lessons learned. Students then meet in teams to get to know
each other and to work out their initial plan for the project. We recognize that due to the scope of
the project and the number of our students who are participating in clinical and internship
experiences during this point in their college careers, project execution also needs to be
innovative. Therefore, after the initial face-to-face meeting, most of the collaborative process
takes place via Skype, Google+, a closed Facebook group, Dropbox, or other electronic
mechanisms. These virtual workspaces allow for meetings to take place regardless of location,
for editing to take place and be shared continually during the writing process, and for all
members of the group to have access to all parts of the project development, regardless of their
area of expertise.
Throughout the summer, students collaboratively develop the storylines. This work is
accompanied by a market research process by the business students so that there is solid
background information regarding what is already being done on a given topic, as well as
evidence for the success factors applicable to a specific customer target. We have found it useful
to have teams break up into two groups to come up with two different story ideas, in order to
reduce groupthink (Janis, 1972) and offer more ideas with which to develop the storyline. The
full team generally includes two students from each college (eight students), so by splitting the
team into two work groups it provides the opportunity for each storyline to be developed through
an interdisciplinary lens (four students, one from each college). In some cases, one story idea
will be chosen for the project, while at other times there is a blend of the two ideas. Once the
main storyline is selected, the writing begins and a storyboard, including initial sketches of the
characters, is constructed.
In the fall, the project shifts from writing to editing and finalizing. The art is also
completed and approved. In addition, price quotes are worked out and a contract is signed with a
publisher. Historically, we have worked with the same publisher for each of the books, due to the
fact that only certain publishers are able to accommodate the size, layout, and imaging needed
for a children’s book. However, student teams are given the opportunity to explore alternative
publication options, including e-books and traditional print publications. Students also need to
start thinking about how they will finance the project (either with a loan or pre-sales). In some
instances, online crowdfunding has been used. Drawing on small contributions from a relatively
large number of people, crowdfunding leverages the “wisdom of crowds” in validating the
quality of the proposed product, which drives the project's success (Mollick, 2014; Surowiecki,
2014). Students in the 2012-2013 book project ran a successful Kickstarter campaign, while one
of our 2014-2015 book projects used Indiegogo. The goal is to always have everything finalized
with the publisher by the first of December. It should be noted that students are responsible for
the funding required to put the book into production, regardless of the publisher they choose.
Exploration of the risk/reward of utilizing things like crowdfunding sites is part of the learning
experience. If the money is not raised, the option of self-publishing through a minimal-cost
service such as an e-book on Amazon.com is an option, but so is the possibility of the book not
being published at all. This is not a fail-safe project, and the realities that exist in the complicated
world of book writing and publishing provide the very real possibility that the book may not
make it all the way to production. However, to date only one out of the six books has failed to be
published.
The spring semester is exciting, as the final product is delivered. However, there is still
more work to be done by the student authors. Books need to be delivered to those who had
Page 62
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
purchased them through the pre-sale process. In addition, there is a heavy push for continuous
marketing and sales. There are presentation opportunities for students to share their observations
and experiences in an academic setting, such as the Butler University Undergraduate Research
Conference, as well as with local and national organizations that are interested in supporting
and/or purchasing copies of the books. Students typically schedule a book-signing event.
A more detailed description of the steps and timeline used at Butler University for the
children’s book project is seen below. This is an approximate timeline as each project is
different, and we continue to innovate and experiment each year.
Table 1
TYPICAL TIMELINE AND TASKS FOR CHILDREN’S BOOK PROJECT
End of Spring Semester Establish faculty mentors
Recruit students and set up structure for accountability
Convene initial team meeting
Summer Conduct research and choose overarching topic
Divide into two subgroups to come up with ideas (reduce groupthink)
Meet again to finalize idea (or variation); storyboard this concept
Start developing drawings of main characters
Fall Semester Finish writing and art
Present project at Senior Project Poster Session (pharmacy students)
Contract with publisher
Develop marketing plan and start pre-sales (possibly through crowdfunding)
Develop and finalize financial plan
Spring Semester Market and sell book
Present book at Butler University Undergraduate Research Conference
Organize book-signing party
Deliver books
Take advantage of presentation opportunities
APPLICABILITY: SURVIVAL SKILLS AND INNOVATION MINDSET
In The Global Achievement Gap, Tony Wagner unveiled a “core set of survival skills for
today’s workplace, as well as for lifelong learning and active citizenship” (Wagner, 2010, p. 14)
that are not being adequately taught even in our best school systems. These skills include:
1. Critical thinking and problem solving
2. Collaboration across networks and leading by influence
3. Agility and adaptability
4. Initiative and entrepreneurialism
5. Effective oral and written communication
6. Accessing and analyzing information
7. Curiosity and imagination
While Wagner targeted much of his discussion on K-12 schools, it can be argued that colleges
and universities are similarly responsible (if not more so) for developing suitable learning
environments. This is a task, many feel, for which higher education is currently unprepared.
Our understanding of learning is expanding in ways that are at least partially
incompatible with the structures of higher education institutions. In addition, these
Page 63
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
developments are occurring at the same time that higher education is being asked to
become more accountable for what students are learning. Ironically, these pressures for
accountability are making us simultaneously more thoughtful and more limited in what
we count as learning. The question that campus leaders need to address is how to reinvent
a curriculum that lives in this new space (Bass, 2012, p. 24).
This reinvention means working across areas of curricular expertise as well as crossing
boundaries of institutional organization. “Effective collaboration requires several skills and
attitudes including the ability to take the perspective of others, speak a common language,
manage conflict, conceptualize. . .problems in a broad fashion, and share resources, knowledge,
and skills” (Welch et al., 1992, p. 2). As summarized in Table 2 and detailed below, the
children’s book project serves as a platform for each of these survival skills.
Table 2
APPLICABILITY OF THE SURVIVAL SKILLS TO THE CHILDREN’S BOOK PROJECT
Survival Skill Children’s Book Project
Critical thinking and problem
solving
The project involves lots of ambiguity, especially dealing with the publisher
and the “real-world” orientation.
There is a need to figure out how to be “edutaining.”
Collaboration across networks
and leading by influence
The project involves upper-level students majoring in discrete disciplines
(i.e., networks) and needing to serve as experts in their respective areas.
Deeper collaboration skills are developed due to the diversity of the team.
Agility and adaptability There are many roadblocks (e.g., Kickstarter did not approve an initial
submission), and students need to figure out how to adapt.
Students also need to adapt to each other's work schedules involving
internships, classes, rotations, etc.
Initiative and entrepreneurialism Faculty members serve as advisors, but do not run, lead, or develop timelines.
Students themselves must take the initiative.
Capitalization (e.g., crowdfunding campaigns) and sales processes entail
entrepreneurial risk.
Effective oral and written
communication
Students must meet the challenge of learning how to communicate at a child’s
level within the book. Additionally, the project requires clear written
communication in the final outcome, as well as practice in oral
communication within a team setting and when marketing the book.
Accessing and analyzing
information
Research must be conducted on the children’s book industry, followed by
analysis and decision-making based on this step.
Curiosity and imagination Curiosity and imagination skills are used in coming up with the story. In order
to prevent groupthink, students typically storyboard two different ideas
and then come together. These skills are also used in finding ways to
market the book.
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Critical thinking is “the disciplined art of ensuring that you use the best thinking you are
capable of in any set of circumstances” (Paul & Elder, 2014, p. 41) and requires asking lots of
questions and checking assumptions. A survey of more than 400 employers found that critical
thinking and creativity/innovation, which are both elements of the problem-solving process, were
expected to increase substantially in importance for successive cohorts of workers entering the
Page 64
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
economy (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). The need for students to think critically and to
problem solve is at the heart of the children’s book project. Representation on each team by
students from multiple professional disciplines challenges the assumptions that individual team
members bring from their own academic arena. For example, some of the business students have
been questioned by their peers as to why a website is needed and whether crowdfunding really
makes sense, given the requisite fees. Moreover, education students have had to explain how
reading levels are established, and how the criteria for quality in children’s literature are
substantiated. In many cases, research needs to be conducted in order to check assumptions and
help guide the team with decision making—especially in ensuring that the book is both
educational and entertaining (“edutaining”). This process indeed helps the students “think about
their thinking” and become more aware of biases.
Collaboration across Networks and Leading by Influence
The “silo effect” of departments working separately, rather than as a team, has not yet
disappeared within the corporate area and is noted to be a significant growing pain (Gleeson &
Rozo, 2014). There has been a conscious effort in the health-care field, especially, to shift toward
a more collaborative, interprofessional approach (Epstein, 2014). This is perhaps the survival
skill that, within the college environment, can be most difficult for existing classes to undertake.
Like businesses, universities similarly tend toward silo structures, as different schools, colleges,
and departments are developed and focused on their specialties—with good reasons, as
professional education within each college is critical to develop expertise in professions. While
general education courses may involve students from different backgrounds, upper-level courses
within a major are typically narrowed to people with similar interests pursuing a similar degree.
Certainly, collaborative learning and team-centered projects are common in contemporary
educational settings, but rarely is there an opportunity for students to collaborate with peers who
have developed different expertise. The children’s book project is unique in this way, in that it
allows upperclassmen to collaborate across networks (i.e., across colleges) and also provides the
opportunity to “lead by influence” as the expert in their area. One of the richest experiences as
educators working in these book projects has been watching students teach each other about their
chosen disciplines. At the same time, students develop a level of respect for each other’s
professions.
Agility and Adaptability
Being able to adapt is critical in the children’s book project. This is perhaps most evident
in the evolution of the book from its first draft when it is initially storyboarded to the final
product that is printed. There is a need to adjust based on the needs of funders and publishers as
well as on feedback provided by mentors and the team. Other evidence of being agile and
adaptable is simply working with each other’s schedules, as most students working on these
book projects have part- or full-time class schedules, internships, and travel schedules. Also, the
key skillset of interdisciplinary flexibility helps students understand that in the working world,
they will also encounter people who do not share their backgrounds and educational experiences.
Page 65
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Initiative and Entrepreneurialism
According to a recent survey, more than 50% of college-aged students would like to
someday start their own business (Kauffman Foundation, 2011). Thus, pursuing an
entrepreneurial task such as writing/publishing their own book will likely serve as an innovative
and inviting way to engage students. In contrast to programs that aim to teach entrepreneurship,
we propose the utilization of entrepreneurship as a means to engage students. Being
entrepreneurial requires a combination of taking initiative, being innovative, and taking risks
(Covin & Slevin, 1989). All three elements are clearly present in taking on the creation of a new
project such as the children’s book. Moreover, the crowdfunding concept, in which all the money
is on the line, itself demonstrates the acceptance of risk; for example, the Kickstarter platform
specifies that if the goal is not attained, none of the money is earned.
Effective Oral and Written Communication
It should come as no surprise in a world where texting is the norm that effective oral and
written communication is a skillset that requires more emphasis and development at the
collegiate level (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; Hart Research Associates, 2013). Raise this
issue with any college educator of incoming freshmen and the educator will surely agree. Yet
communication is critical, because without it a great idea loses credibility. As part of the project,
the student team has to put forth significant effort toward writing, editing, and developmental
appropriateness for the end-user. Students from the College of Education share their expertise
and ensure that language is at a level children can understand. Also, students have to orally
communicate the premise of the book—they have to sell the book itself before it is written.
Creating a video for a Kickstarter campaign is another example of a communicative skillset that
students need to employ in order to successfully complete the project.
Accessing and Analyzing Information
Throughout the project, there is a wealth of information that needs to be gathered and
analyzed. Early on, market research needs to be conducted on the children’s literature publishing
industry. As this is an industry that is changing with the influx of technology, with more than
5,000 new titles added each year, new data and opportunities constantly need to be examined. In
the latter part of the project, students need to contact different publishers for quotes, analyze
detailed information and contracts, and make decisions accordingly. A recent example was the
contract around the Kickstarter campaign that students needed to understand before project
implementation. They were surprised to discover dual costs for this capitalization: a percentage
taken out by Kickstarter, and transaction fees assigned by credit card companies. Based on this
information, they examined other crowdsourcing options and ultimately had to make a business
decision on which direction to take.
Curiosity and Imagination
Pink (2005) emphasized the importance of “right-brain” thinkers in today’s economy. As
students are developing a new children’s book, there is an enormous reliance on creativity and
using their imaginations (i.e., employing right-brain thinking). They need to come up with
Page 66
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
characters, a plot, a storyline, illustrations, and more. At the outset, students typically break into
two subgroups in order to reduce the possibility of groupthink (Janis, 1972). By having fewer
members in each subgroup, the imagination and creativity of each student is further leveraged
and drawn out.
In his more recent book, Creating Innovators (2012), Wagner expanded on The Global
Achievement Gap by declaring that the seven survival skills are necessary, but not sufficient.
Students also need to be taught to be innovators. Such an approach requires an emphasis on
perseverance, willingness to experiment, taking calculated risks, tolerating failure, and design
thinking. These innovation skills can be taught through the principles of play, passion, and
purpose. Again, the children’s book project offers an opportunity for students to experience each
of these principles.
Play
It makes intuitive sense that being innovative involves a sense of play (Pink, 2005).
Simply put, if students are enjoying themselves, they are likely to be more engaged (Hromek &
Roffey, 2009). The book projects indeed represent an opportunity for students to have fun,
perhaps most evidenced by the high level of excitement during the initial kick-off meeting. As
noted by one student, the idea of writing and having their name on a published book is something
they only dreamed of happening before graduating from college.
Passion
Passion refers to a “strong inclination toward an activity that people like, that they find
important, and in which they invest time and energy” (Vallerand et al., 2003, p. 756). Indeed,
passion is frequently mentioned as important for entrepreneurs (Breugst, Domurath, Patzelt, &
Klaukien, 2012). Within the children’s book projects, students are able to select a topic that they
feel particularly passionate about. In some cases, the general theme is provided (e.g., asthma),
and then students with an interest in that area sign up. In the most recent year, students were able
to select a health-care topic in which they had particular interest. This passion equates to a more
engaged student, and thus a better outcome in terms of the actual book and the commitment to
learning that is taking place.
Purpose
Perhaps most important, the children’s book project allows students an opportunity not
only to utilize their emerging expertise collaboratively, but also in a purposeful way. Purpose
serves as an essential intrinsic motivator (Pink, 2011). Most of the books to date have been
geared toward helping to educate children about an important topic. For example, one student
team produced a book on asthma, He Huffed and He Puffed But…A Tale of a Wolf with Asthma.
This team felt especially proud when the Indiana State Department of Health purchased more
than 700 copies to distribute to children across the state of Indiana. Thus, the students felt that
they were contributing and their project had a purpose.
Page 67
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 3
APPLICABILITY OF INNOVATION PRINCIPLES TO THE CHILDREN’S BOOK PROJECT
Innovation Principles Children’s Book Project
Play The book project is clearly fun. Students are nearly giddy at the early
meetings and are amazed to have the opportunity to actually publish a
book (with their name on it!).
Passion Students decide what the topic will be, based upon their interests.
Purpose Students feel there is a purpose behind their books because they will be
helping to educate on an important topic. Their final outcome has clear
value.
Babson College professors Neck, Greene, and Brush (2014) recently outlined the
practices of entrepreneurship education, which are based on play, empathy, creation,
experimentation, and reflection. While Wagner discussed the idea of play, his work only hinted
at the other four aspects, which deserve further discussion in regard to the children's book
project. Foremost, there is the importance of empathy—defined as a “social and emotional skill
that helps us feel and understand the emotions, circumstances, intentions, thoughts, and needs of
others, such that we can offer sensitive, perceptive, and appropriate communications and
supports” (McLaren, 2013, p. 4). As each book is designed to target a specific audience, students
have to make additional efforts to empathize with the end-user. For instance, with the book on
asthma, students needed to get to know and empathize with both asthmatic and non-asthmatic
readers and consider how they might react. With the book Pharmacy and Me, students wanted
young readers to understand the role of the pharmacist. The practice of creation is self-evident,
given the creative process needed to develop an entire story as well as create the final product.
Throughout this process, there is a lot of experimentation that occurs as the students try certain
routes and need to constantly adapt to the circumstances. Last, the importance of reflection
cannot be emphasized enough. While each college takes a different approach to the way in which
the overall project is reflected—whether it is a written document or a conversation—this is
indeed the end of the cycle where students reflect not only on what they learned, but also on how
this experience will affect them going forward. With Pharmacy and Me, for example, reflection
was captured by College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences students in a collective summary of
their experience, passion, and challenges, published in The American Pharmacists Association
student publication, Student Pharmacist.
OUTCOMES
Feedback from student participants has been extremely positive, and the current demand
for being selected to participate in the project is high. As students have shared their experiences
with peers, a resultant pipeline of interested participants has minimized the need for extensive
recruiting. From an instructor perspective, there is high value for this type of learning experience
as well, as it strikes at the highest summit of Bloom’s Taxonomy—creating. We thus view the
children’s book project in line with other interdisciplinary entrepreneurship programs that have
demonstrated success (Johnson & Envick, 2014). However, the exact nature of the benefits can
be perhaps best illustrated by considering the discipline from which the students originate. From
the perspective of the College of Business, this experience is highly valued due to the fact that
students will need to constantly interact with others in different areas in their future careers.
Page 68
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Thus, an accounting major will soon need to work with business colleagues in research and
development, marketing, etc. This experience highlights the diversity of student engagement, and
how working as a team truly has the potential to do amazing things. It also provides the
opportunity for business students to experience the challenges associated with project
management, much of which must be completed virtually or online due to team members' busy
schedules. Last, it challenges students to leverage their skills in a real-world setting when it
comes to conducting research, raising funds, keeping records, marketing, and selling.
For pharmacy students, the experience helps them to become better pharmacists, because
they are teaching through writing, and all pharmacists are teachers. Furthermore, students learn
how to communicate with children at a level they can understand, through collaboration with
their College of Education peers. Leaders in any profession, including pharmacy, also write and
publish, and through this opportunity, students are published authors prior to graduation from
pharmacy school. The pharmacy curriculum is heavy in clinical and pharmacological education,
and the opportunity to write and reflect often is not emphasized; however, through this project,
students have the opportunity to polish their written communication skills as adjuncts to their
developing clinical and pharmacological acumen.
Within the Jordan College of the Arts, students benefit by utilizing their craft to develop
an integral part of the story. They are practicing artists who achieve a real-world outcome. These
students are working as they would if they had a client, or are working in a creative team as the
creative leads of the project. They must first learn team collaboration, then convey an idea from
the team to paper, and finally create characters and visual images that complement the storyline.
Students learn how to creatively collaborate and work with other students who are not trained
illustrators.
In order to continue to nurture classroom innovation, we must provide the instructional
leaders of these classrooms with their own experiences in developing and evolving innovative
ideas. For preservice teachers, much of their work around innovation will come from creating
environments that best foster the solution-focused, collaborative, problem-solving thinkers that
are needed in our 21st-century schools and businesses. In combination with effective teacher
education programs, preservice teachers must also have the opportunity to participate as learners
in innovative projects that allow for diverse groups to come together to create a unique and
dynamic outcome. As we think about the importance that projects such as these can play in the
development of preservice teachers, we need only look toward what education researchers and
practitioners have identified. In a 2013 report, Teaching 2030: Leveraging Teacher Preparation
2.0, the authors noted that “preparation programs can do a great deal to model the instruction,
collaboration, and leadership that they want their candidates to practice as teachers” (Allen et al.,
2013, p. 16). They went on to specifically comment on the importance of interdisciplinary work
in modeling these practices. “An interdisciplinary education is critical to ensuring that teachers
know how to think critically, analyze situations, and apply what they know in a wide range of
school environments, tailoring instruction to meet individual students’ needs along the way”
(Allen et al., 2013, p. 29).
As we move toward the next steps in our research on these projects, it is our intent to
quantify the impact on students utilizing the seven survival skills outlined by Wagner (2010) as
the basis for our study. By looking at each of the areas, we will further investigate the impact on
the subgroups of students within specific majors as well as the broader impact on the cross-
disciplinary teams.
Page 69
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
CHALLENGES AND POSSIBLE EXTENSIONS
Although an interdisciplinary project such as this has effected great value and learning by
both students and faculty, it is not without its challenges. Perhaps one of the most pressing issues
for replicating such a process is working with the existing course infrastructure to make this
happen. At Butler University, we have found the structure of the course to vary across colleges,
with some offering it as part of a required senior thesis project and others as independent study.
Still other students voluntarily participate without receiving any credit. A secondary issue is how
to finance the book project. We were fortunate to receive some initial grant funds to offset
publication costs and supplement the income from purchased books. As the project has evolved,
we have since moved to either offering the teams a loan from this fund and/or asking them to
pre-sell a certain number of books ahead of time. In this case, the risk is minimized and an order
is placed only after cash is received. Most important, we have learned as advisors not to set
overly rigid policies but rather to leave the process rather ambiguous so that students can take
initiative and figure it out independently.
While the process described above has worked well at Butler University, it is a constant
work in process—with learning, customizing, and evolution taking place each year. Nonetheless,
there are likely many components that could be replicated elsewhere. While we encourage
imitation, we do so with hesitation. There is a need to customize the process to each university.
At Butler, for example, pharmacy is one of the largest colleges, and thus it makes sense for us to
focus on health-related topics; also, the project idea originated with the pharmacy program. At
other schools, different subject matter may be more appropriate—whether at a school of design,
engineering, math, medicine, or any other professional area.
Innovative pedagogy was at the heart of the learning objectives developed by faculty as
they came together from across campus to develop this project—as we attempted to exemplify
the idea of creating within Bloom’s Taxonomy. Students learn best through integrative, creative
projects. While the pedagogical structure is utilized in a higher education environment, it also
provides an opportunity for incubating the growth of innovative educators as they participate in
processes that they will use with students in their own classrooms and larger school
communities.
With technology constantly evolving, and with the increasing use of tablets and other
electronic reading devices, it is acknowledged that such forces have affected the children’s book
industry. Yet we think this simply offers further room for evolution of the book project. Already,
the last book has been made available on Amazon.com as an e-book. What if students focused
solely on e-books (which are much less costly to publish) or secondarily on developing a
smartphone application as an extension of the project? The possibilities are endless.
As universities look to replicate this model on their campuses, the key is to begin by
finding like-minded colleagues to jump into the project, but with the caution that these
colleagues should cross multiple disciplines in order to model the interdisciplinary approach that
will be used by the students. Utilize existing structures on campus as much as possible so that the
project does not become another higher education silo that is a “best kept secret” at your
institution. For example, our students participate in an existing undergraduate research
conference hosted by our university, so that students can share the outcomes of the work. Finally,
don’t overlook constituent groups that might have an interest in the topic about which your
students are writing. Our students have found both funding and publicity partners in our state
department of health, drugstores, and even our state bicentennial commission.
Page 70
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
CONCLUSION
Through a diverse collaboration of multiple colleges within a university, students and
faculty can reap the benefits of interprofessional collaboration via writing and producing books.
Now that we, along with several groups of students at Butler University, have published several
books around health care and STEM subject matter over the course of several years, we hope to
spread the concept of interprofessional collaboration and entrepreneurial behaviors in students
moving forward. Through the framework of Wagner’s work (2010, 2012), we believe that we
have increased student learning in all seven domains—critical thinking; problem solving;
collaboration across networks and leading by influence and agility; acting entrepreneurially and
taking initiative; accessing and analyzing information; employing effective oral and written
communication; and curiosity and imagination. We hope projects like these flourish not only
now, but well into the future.
REFERENCES
Allen, M., D. Braunfeld, S. C’de Baca, C. Chandler, K. Cortelyou, S. Highley, . . . J. Holland (2013). Teaching
2030: Leveraging Teacher Preparation 2.0. Retrieved June 1, 2015, fromhttp://www.teachingquality.org/
sites/default/files/TEACHING_2030_Leveraging_Teacher_Preparation.pdf
Bass, R. (2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved
May 28, 2015, fromhttp://www.educause.edu/ero/article/disrupting-ourselves-problem-learning-higher-
education
Breugst, N., A. Domurath, H. Patzelt & A. Klaukien (2012). Perceptions of entrepreneurial passion and employees'
commitment to entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 36(1), 171-192.
Casner-Lotto, J. & L. Barrington (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic
knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. Retrieved June 1, 2015,
fromhttp://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/BED-06-Workforce.pdf
Covin, J. G. & D. P. Slevin (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments.
Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.
Epstein, N. N. (2014). Multidisciplinary in-hospital teams improve patient outcomes: A review. Surgical Neurology
International, Supplement, 7(5), 295-303.
Gleeson, B. & M. Rozo (2014). The silo mentality: How to break down the barriers. Forbes.com. Retrieved June 1,
2015, fromhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/brentgleeson/2013/10/02/the-silo-mentality-how-to-break-down-
the-barriers
Hart Research Associates (2013). It takes more than a major: Employee priorities for college learning and student
success. Retrieved June 1, 2015 fromhttps://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2013_
EmployerSurvey.pdf
Hromek, R. & S. Roffey (2009). Games as a pedagogy to promote social and emotional learning: “It’s fun and we
learn things.” Simulation and Gaming, 40(5), 626-644.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Johnson, J. E. & B. R. Envick (2014). Assessing the learning goal outcomes of an interdisciplinary entrepreneurship
cohort program: A comprehensive survey approach. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 17(1), 135-
149.
Kauffman Foundation (2011). Young Invincibles Policy Brief. Retrieved June 1, 2015 fromhttp://www.kauffman.
org/~/media/kauffman_org/research%20reports%20and%20covers/2011/11/millennials_study.pdf.
McLaren, K. (2013). The Art of Empathy: A Complete Guide to Life’s Most Essential Skills. Boulder, CO: Sounds
True.
Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1-
16.
Neck, H. K., P. G. Greene & C. G. Brush (2014). Teaching Entrepreneurship: A Practice-Based Approach.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Page 71
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Paul, R. & L. Elder (2014). Learning the art of critical thinking. Rotman Management, January, 40-45.
Pink, D. H. (2005). A Whole New Mind. New York: Penguin Group.
Pink, D. H. (2011). Dive. New York: Riverhead Books.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective
Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. New York: Doubleday.
Vallerand, R. J., C. Blanchard, G. Mageau, R. Koestner, C. Ratelle, M. Léonard, . . . J. Marsolais (2003). Les
passions de l'Âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 756-767.
Wagner, T. (2010). The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don’t Teach the New Survival Skills
Our Children Need—and What We Can Do about It. New York: Basic Books.
Wagner, T. (2012). Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World. New York:
Scribner.
Welch, M., S. Sheridan, A. Fuhriman, A. Hart, M. Connell & T. Stoddart (1992). Preparing Professionals for
Educational Partnerships: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Educational Psychology Papers and
Publications. Paper 24.
Page 72
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Exhibit A: Examples of Children’s Book Projects at Butler University
Title
Year
Published
Colleges Involved
Book Format &
Availability
Prescription to My Younger Self:
What I Learned after Pharmacy
School
2008
College of Pharmacy and Health
Sciences; Jordan College of the
Arts
Book (Amazon)
Who's Who in Healthcare: Global
Healthcare Systems
2010
College of Pharmacy and Health
Sciences; Jordan College of the
Arts
Not published
Pharmacy and Me 2012
College of Education; College of
Pharmacy and Health Sciences;
Jordan College of the Arts
e-book (Amazon);
Book (Butler Campus
Store*)
He Huffed and He Puffed But…A
Tale of a Wolf with Asthma
2013
College of Business; College of
Education; College of Pharmacy
and Health Sciences; Jordan
College of the Arts
e-book (Amazon);
Book (Butler Campus
Store*)
Max Greene & The Vaccine Team 2015
College of Business; College of
Education; College of Pharmacy
and Health Sciences; Jordan
College of the Arts
Book (Butler Campus
Store*
The Gifts of Indiana: A Tale of
Three Birthdays and One Grand
Adventure
2015
College of Business; College of
Education; College of Pharmacy
and Health Sciences; Jordan
College of the Arts
e-book (Amazon);
Book (Butler Campus
Store*)
* Butler Campus Store website:http://www.bkstr.com/butlerstore/home
Page 73
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
BUILDING A SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK FOR
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Astri Ghina, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung Institute
of Technology
Togar M. Simatupang, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung
Institute of Technology
Aurik Gustomo, School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung
Institute of Technology
ABSTRACT
The importance of entrepreneurship education that positively impacts on the creation of
new ventures has been widely recognized. Despite numerous studies conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of entrepreneurship education within a university setting, the results are mostly
fragmented. Most studies are focused on the unsystematic approach to entrepreneurship
education that partially incorporates curricula, certain pedagogy, institutional support, and
assessment. This research thus proposes a systematic framework for entrepreneurship education
as guidelines for attaining effective learning and understanding priorities of key stakeholders
within a university to develop entrepreneurial graduates.
Key words: entrepreneurship; entrepreneurship education; effectiveness of entrepreneurship
education; effective learning; systematic framework; entrepreneurial graduates.
INTRODUCTION
The role of entrepreneurs has been respected as a great contributor to the economic
development of most nations (Ogbo, 2012). Nations develop faster if they have high quality,
creative, and innovative entrepreneurs that implement new ideas into practical action in every
business. Entrepreneur is an important issue in developing countries. For example, Thailand has
an established business ownership rate of 33.1%, Indonesia has 11.9%, Malaysia has 8.5%, and
Philippine has 6.2% (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2014).
Entrepreneurship Education (EE) has a vital role in guiding all learners to become more
entrepreneurial-minded (Hegarty, 2006). The implementation of EE within universities aims to
infuse the entrepreneurial culture and spirit into students, as well as creating new educated
entrepreneurs and new businesses (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013). In other words, the
expected outcome is to produce well-educated entrepreneurs that will create jobs. Nevertheless,
according to 46 case interviews at European Universities, there are several barriers facing EE:
EE depends on the efforts of a limited number of people; academic staff members lack the time
to engage in EE; educators’ inadequate competence; lack of funding to support EE; the
opposition of academic staff members to the introduction of EE; lack of support for EE from the
government; lack of good-quality material; lack of academic credibility; lack of recognition for
excellent EE; and lack of support from top management (Directorate-General for Enterprise and
Industry, 2008). Whereas, according to a survey result from 549 company founders in the United
State, 70% said that university education was important to support students in becoming
Page 74
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
successful entrepreneurs (Wadhwa et al. 2009).
Several studies of EE were conducted in order to support students in becoming successful
entrepreneurs. Most of the current researches tend to focus on the unsystematic approach to EE
that partially incorporates content (Co & Mitchell, 2006), mapping of EE within a higher
education institution (Solomon, 2007; Varblane & Mets, 2010), delivery method (Co & Mitchell,
2006; Heinonen & Poikkijoki, 2006; Tan & Ng, 2006), psychological aspects of students
(Ibrahim & Soufani, 2002; Gelderen, 2010) and the importance of students’ selection process
(Dhliwayo, 2008).
The objective of this research is to propose a systematic framework for EE by: (a)
creating a guideline for effective learning to develop entrepreneurial graduates; (b)
understanding the priorities for effective learning to develop entrepreneurial graduates; (c)
identifying areas of opportunity for learning improvement. The framework covers all
stakeholders such as students, staff members and the institution, to manage EE effectively (Piper,
1993). It needs to involve all important aspects that support the students to become
entrepreneurs, it support from staff members or from the institution (Herrmann et al., 2008).
The structure of this paper consists of introduction, literature review, building the
proposed conceptual model, discussion and conclusion. Introduction contains problem
statements that lead to the questions of this research. Literature review discusses the findings and
filling the gaps of this research area, which leads to propose a systematic framework of EE. This
is followed by an explanation of how to build this systematic framework. In the discussion
section, the main findings and scientific contributions of this research are explained. Finally, the
summary of this research is shown in the conclusion section.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature Review Method
The method adopted are for the purpose to provide a comprehensive and critical literature
review of empirical research in EE. A schematic representation of literature review method
adopted in this research is given in Figure 1. The issues of database selection, articles selection,
articles classification, and analysis of classified articles will be discussed under the literature
review schematic.
STEP 1
STEP 2
Selection of database:
Emerald and ProQuest
Articles selection:
Search for “Entrepreneurship Education”, “Learning of
Entrepreneurship Education” or “Evaluation of
Page 75
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Figure 1: Literature Review Method
Step 1: Selection of database
The articles were collected from Emerald and ProQuest.
Step 2: Article selection
Emerald Database
The exact phrases “Entrepreneurship Education” (5714 total results), “Learning of
Entrepreneurship Education” (3687 total results) and “Evaluation of Entrepreneurship
Education” (2572 total results) were searched for in journal-article title. From the first 100
results displayed through each keyword, articles were selected by their titles’ relevance to the
entrepreneurship education topic. The search was limited to the first 100 articles of each
keyword because it was already saturated.
The keyword “Entrepreneurship Education” resulted in 42 articles, the keyword
“Learning of Entrepreneurship Education” had 2 articles, and the keyword “Evaluation of
Entrepreneurship Education” brought up 7 articles. Next, the articles were selected by reading
the abstracts relating to the “business process” or “main activities” of EE, such as curriculum,
pedagogy, institutional support, assessment of EE, and theory of EE. The keyword
“Entrepreneurship Education” resulted in 28 articles, the keyword “Learning of Entrepreneurship
Education” had 1 article, and the keyword “Evaluation of Entrepreneurship Education” came up
with 5 articles. In total, all keywords resulted in 34 articles. The illustration of article selection
can be seen in Table 1.
Page 76
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
ProQuest Database
The exact phrases “Entrepreneurship Education”, “Learning of Entrepreneurship
Education” and “Evaluation of Entrepreneurship Education” were searched for in full text form
only through “Basic Search”, with a total of 4235 results. From the first 150 displayed results,
articles were selected by relevance of their titles to the EE topic. The result was 15 articles,
followed by selecting articles through reading abstracts related to the “business process” or
“main activities” of EE such as curriculum, pedagogy, institutional support, assessment of EE,
and theory of EE. The final result is 6 articles. The search was limited to the first 150 articles of
each keyword because of saturation. Illustration of article selection can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1
ARTICLE SELECTION FROM EMERALD AND PROQUEST
KEYWORDS
TOTAL
RESULTS
SELECTION-I
(By Title)
SELECTION-II
(By Abstract)
EMERALD
“Entrepreneurship Education” 5714
(Search limited to the
first 100 articles in
display)
42 28
“Learning of Entrepreneurship
Education”
3687
(Search limited to the
first 100 articles in
display)
2 1
“Evaluation of Entrepreneurship
Education”
2572
(Search limited to the
first 100 articles in
display)
7 5
Total 51 34
PROQUEST
“Entrepreneurship Education”,
“Learning of Entrepreneurship
Education” and “Evaluation of
Entrepreneurship Education”
4235
(Search limited to the
first 150 articles in
display)
15 6
Step 3: Classification of articles
In this step, the 40 selected articles were critically analyzed for classification. Initial
attempts to analyze this collection of articles stemmed from the goal of this research, which is an
attempt to develop a theory that explains entrepreneurial learning. There seems to be a number of
enduring educational issues to which these long-lasting concepts relate – those concerning
Learning input; Learning process; Learning assessment and evaluation, and Theory of
Entrepreneurship Education.
This framework of categorization is based on an analytical review of program evaluation
to judge its performance. Harvey (2002) noted that assessment may focus on input (such as
teaching staff, learning resources), process (such as teaching, learning, support services) or
outcomes (such as students’ academic standards of achievement or professional competence,
employment rates, student perception of their learning). Assessment evidence includes statistical
indicators, direct observation and direct evaluation of research output, student and graduate
views, employer views, student performance, self-assessment and other documentation,
discussion and interviews with teachers, students and managers, and perceptions of other
Page 77
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
agencies, such as professional bodies (Harvey, 2004). The characteristics of those classes can be
seen in Table 2.
Table 2
CHARACTERISTICS OF ARTICLE CLASSIFICATION
NO CLASSES CHARACTERISTICS
1 Learning Input The purpose of the program, target audience, the type of knowledge, skill
and attitude that students are expected to acquire.
2 Learning Process The process of learning in order to fulfill students’ cognitive needs,
affective needs, psychomotor needs and social needs through different
teaching methods such as discussion, guest speakers, case studies, lectures,
video presentations, computer simulations, role play, research projects, real
venture set-ups, internships, company visits, workshops, games and
competitions, feasibility studies, small business consulting, community
development, web-based assignments, entrepreneurship courses on the web,
offering information on the web, offering management and technical
assistance; other institutional facilities that support the learning process
such as lecturers, tutors, administrators, entrepreneurship budgets, roles in
the community and outreach activities.
3 Learning Assessment
and Evaluation
Indicators for impact assessment such as examination scores, start-ups by
graduates, business performance, attitude and intention to act, student or
alumni satisfaction; assessment methods such as tests/examinations,
making business plans, making research papers; the quality of the
program’s performance.
4 Framework of
Entrepreneurship
Education
Framework or concepts concerning entrepreneurship education; a set of
principles on which the practice of an entrepreneurial activity is based; a set
of principles regarding proper entrepreneurs behavior.
Step 4: Analysis of classified articles
This step identifies the similarities and differences of classified articles to find research
gaps of EE in empirical research, in addition to presenting significant findings from existing
literature. As stated in numerous studies, EE is becoming more and more important worldwide.
While research work in entrepreneurship is growing and gaining increased legitimacy within the
scientific community, on the other hand it lacks comprehensive elements of entrepreneurship
learning within university. Thus, it can be said that the research in entrepreneurship is still at an
exploratory stage. This is probably due to the fact that most studies focus on specific programs or
courses. Few studies present developed hypotheses and even fewer build on theories to elaborate
the hypotheses. There are four classifications of articles with six main attributes of related issues
in EE: coverage of background factors, curriculum, pedagogy, institutional supports, assessment,
and theories of entrepreneurial learning within universities. Most authors perform empirical or
non-empirical studies with main scopes of curriculum, pedagogy, institutional support, and
assessment.
The Literature Review Analysis
Entrepreneurship Education (EE) assumes extraordinary relevance within academic
programs all over the world (Alberti et al. 2004), and there seems to be widespread recognition
that entrepreneurship can contribute to economic development (Szirmai et al., 2011). The
objective of EE as presented by the European Union (2002) includes raising peoples’ awareness
of self-employment as a career opportunity, promoting the development of personal qualities that
Page 78
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
are relevant to entrepreneurship such as creativity, risk taking, and responsibility, and providing
the technical and business skills that are needed in order to start a venture. EE is defined as
purposeful intervention by an instructor in the life of a learner, to impart entrepreneurial qualities
and skills that enable the learner to survive in the business world (Isaacs et al., 2007). Alberti et
al. (2004) defined EE as the structured and formal transmission of entrepreneurial competencies;
it refers to the skills, concepts and mental awareness used by individuals during the process of
starting and developing their growth-oriented ventures.
A study conducted by Varblane & Mets (2010) focused on mapping EE in 774 higher
education institutions in 22 European transition countries. Analysis of information obtained from
web-based sources and a questionnaire identified 332 institutions in the region offering
entrepreneurship-oriented courses, modules or curricula. They explored entrepreneurship
courses, curricula of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship centers and teaching methods, with
results provided by descriptive statistics.
Similarly, a study conducted by Solomon (2007) explored mapping of course offering,
teaching methods, periodicals used in class, and technological support from institutions. This
study, the sixth survey conducted by the author since 1979, provided an analytical overview of
EE in the USA from 2004 to 2005 in 270 institutions. It also provided results by descriptive
statistics.
According to Co & Mitchell (2006), the most popular courses focused on
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management as an overview of the knowledge and skills
needed for the identification, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities. The findings showed
that teaching of entrepreneurship focused on traditional classroom delivery, such as lectures,
while entrepreneurship research in South Africa was considered less rigorous than other
management disciplines.
Another study from Indonesia measured the effectiveness of entrepreneurship courses
within Bengkulu University; but they were concerned with learning and teaching resources,
common teaching methods used, and student satisfaction toward learning outcomes by using
questionnaires (Abduh et al. 2012). It provided results by descriptive statistics.
The study conducted by Fayolle et al. (2006) was experimental research, but their focus
was only on evaluation of certain programs using entrepreneurial intention (Theory of Planned
Behavior) as a tool to measure the effectiveness of EE. It provided results with statistical tools to
examine the relationship between variables in the study.
The viewpoint conducted by Gelderen (2010) presented the importance of autonomy as
the guiding aim of EE. The primary aim was to allow students to work from their own inner
motivational resource base. The review conducted by Dhliwayo (2008) presented the importance
of student selection. They state that only students with the right entrepreneurial attitude would be
successfully processed or graduate into an entrepreneur. Another review conducted by Ibrahim &
Soufani (2002) presented the model of entrepreneurship training, in which they discussed the
importance of entrepreneurial traits, competences, and managerial skills to produce
entrepreneurial graduates. Henry et al. (2005) reviewed learning processes in different situations,
namely in the classroom and real world, and concluded the criteria of success within both
situations. An important review conducted by Mwasalwiba (2010) assessed the alignment
existing between generic objectives, target audience, teaching methods used, and impact
indicators used to measure effective learning in EE.
Salamzadeh et al. (2011) proposed a systematic framework for entrepreneurial university.
The framework includes special input (resources, culture, rules and regulations, structure,
Page 79
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
mission, entrepreneurial capabilities, and expectations of society, industry, government and
market.), processes (teaching, research, managerial processes, logistical processes,
commercialization, selection, funding and financial processes, networking, multilateral
interaction, and innovation, research and development activities), output (entrepreneur human
resources, effective research in line with market needs, innovations and inventions,
entrepreneurial networks, and entrepreneurial centers) and aimed to mobilize all of its resources,
abilities and capabilities in order to fulfill its Third Mission. They conducted a set of semi-
structured interviews with 25 experts in this domain.
It is very important to know the definition of systematic framework before beginning to
propose it in this research. According to the basic definition of systematic and framework from
several dictionaries, there are various explanations. The mapping definition of systematic and
framework can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3
THE MAPPING DEFINITION OF SYSTEMATIC AND FRAMEWORK
WORD DEFINITION REFERENCES
Systematic
Characterized by, based on, or constituting a
system: systematic thought.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, 2011)
Working or done in a step-by-step manner;
methodical: a systematic worker; a systematic
approach.
Characterized by the use of order and
planning; methodical: a systematic
administrator.
(Collins English Dictionary - Complete
& Unabridged, 2003)
Having, showing, or involving method, plan or
an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of
facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a
particular field of knowledge or thought
(Systematic-1, n.d.)
Relating to, or concerned with classification;
neat, orderly, organized, regular, methodical,
systematized
(Systematic-2, n.d.)
Framework
The basic structure of something; a set of ideas
or facts that provide support for something
(Framework, n.d.)
A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and
practices that constitutes a way of viewing
reality.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, 2011)
A structure or frame supporting or containing
something
(Collins English Dictionary - Complete
& Unabridged, 2012)
Based on the basic definition of systematic and framework from dictionaries, the
definition of Systematic Framework can then be formulated. A systematic framework is a well-
organized basic structure of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way
of viewing reality, showing a comprehensive (complete and includes all aspects that are
important) assemblage of facts or principles in a particular field of knowledge.
The project partners organized by Herrmann et al. (2008) addressed effective learning
and institutional support for EE to develop entrepreneurial graduates within a university context.
They proposed a framework for entrepreneurship education strategy based on a set of guiding
principles informed by international expert panel members. Their framework can be categorized
as systematic framework because it is well-organized and includes all aspects of concepts,
values, and best practices that are important for developing entrepreneurial graduates within a
Page 80
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
university. This framework can be used as a starting guideline for effective learning to develop
entrepreneurial graduates. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the structured responsibility
regarding the key stakeholders within a university (students, staff, and institution) relate to all
important aspects of concepts, values, and best practices based on international expert panel
members. It also does not show the pattern of interaction among its key stakeholders and
assurances of learning in the implemented framework. The framework contains the need for an
enabling institutional environment, the engagement of key stakeholders within and outside the
institution, the development of entrepreneurial pedagogic approaches in teaching, and learning
and support practices.
The need for enabling institutional environments means that universities can provide the
right environment that will inspire and motivate individuals to find opportunities, acquire
resources, and take action in a variety of contexts that have relevance to their lives and
aspirations. In such environments, there should be clarity about entrepreneurial outcomes, the
alignment between entrepreneurial outcomes and appropriate ways of learning, and the kind of
learning that needs to take place. The engagement of key stakeholders means that
entrepreneurship does not take place in isolation from its broader environment, which means that
continuous learning is sustained through relationships with stakeholders and others. Indeed,
successful entrepreneurship is more likely to happen in a situation where the stakeholders
provide learning opportunities and facilitate the creation and exchange of tacit knowledge.
Development of entrepreneurial pedagogic approaches in teaching, learning and support
practices means that the delivery of the desired entrepreneurial outcomes challenges institutions
and educators to review and reflect on what needs to be taught and learnt and how the
appropriate learning environments and approaches can be created. Such practices should be
clearly aligned with the existing goals, outcomes, and assessment processes (Herrmann et al.,
2008).
According to the articles for this literature review, studies on entrepreneurship education
can be analyzed by an implementation framework from Herrmann et al. (2008) with which to
discover the research gap from entrepreneurship education literature. The results of analysis that
uses the set of guiding principles from Herrmann et al. (2008) can be seen in Table 4.
Table 4
MAPPING OF ARTICLES FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION FRAMEWORK
Author/Year
Guiding Principles for Entrepreneurship Education Strategy
Institutional
environment
The engagement of key
stakeholders within and
outside the institution
Development of entrepreneurial
pedagogic approaches in teaching,
learning and support practices
Ibrahim and Soufani
(2002)
- - ?
Co and Mitchell
(2006)
? - ?
Tan and Ng (2006) - - ?
Solomon (2007) ? - ?
Dhliwayo (2008) ? - -
Gelderen (2010) - - ?
Mwasalwiba (2010) ? - ?
Varblane and Mets
(2010)
? - ?
Salamzadeh (2011) ? ? ?
Page 81
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
According to the above mapping, little attention has been dedicated to all elements of
learning that are important to develop entrepreneurial graduates within a university context. Most
studies focused on the institutional environment (curriculum, institutional supports,
entrepreneurial traits, partial assessment) and the development of entrepreneurial pedagogic
approaches in teaching, learning and support practices. There are limited studies that focused on
a systematic framework of entrepreneurship education.
The study conducted by Salamzadeh et al. (2011) proposed a systematic framework for
an entrepreneurial university using the Input-Process-Output-Outcome (IPOO) Model. The
framework covers all elements of learning that are important for an entrepreneurial university.
According to the IPOO model, there are the main valuable aspects of input, process, output, and
outcome, but there is unclear structured responsibility regarding the key stakeholders within the
university (students, staff, institution) related to those main valuable aspects. The IPOO model
does not show the pattern of interaction among its key stakeholders and the assurance of
learning. Meanwhile, Ropke (1998 as cited in Salamzadeh, 2011) considers the entrepreneurial
university as an Entrepreneur Organization that views three items: first, a university as an
organization adopts an entrepreneurial management style (institution); second, its members act
entrepreneurially (student and staff); and third, it follows an entrepreneurial pattern to interact
with its environment (student, staff, and institution).
A study conducted by Piper (1993) applied a general framework of management in
education within a university context. The framework involves all key stakeholders that support
management in education, such as students, staff members, and institution. Each of those key
stakeholders has important responsibilities, namely ability, opportunity, and incentive. The
framework by Piper (1993) meets all sets of guiding principles informed by Herrmann et al.
(2008): it is well-organized, with clearly-structured responsibility regarding the key stakeholders
within the university (students, staff, and institution) relating to all aspects of concepts, values,
and best practices that are important for developing entrepreneurial graduates. It also has clear
patterns of interaction among its key stakeholders within the university.
According to the systematic framework proposed from literature, the systematic
framework for EE can be characterized by several components in the context of entrepreneurship
education:
(a) learning goals of EE: what the program is trying to do and for whom
(b) comprehensive
(c) well-organized
(d) allocation of resources: clearly-structured responsibility of key stakeholders, clear patterns of
interaction among its key stakeholders
(e) assurance of learning, which are concerns expressed since the last evaluation, including but
not limited to the target population, objectives, resources and personnel responsibilities
The analysis of framework proposed by literature based on the systematic framework’s
characteristics can be seen in Table 5.
Table 5
AN ANALYSIS OF PREVIOUSLY- PROPOSED SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK
RESEARCH
No Characteristics Systematic Framework Proposed by Previous Researches
Page 82
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Piper
(1993)
Herrmann et al.
(2008)
Salamzadeh et al.
(2011)
(a) Context of entrepreneurship
education
x ? x
(b) Comprehensive ? ? ?
(c) Well-organized ? ? ?
(d) Allocated resources ? x x
(e) Assurance of Learning x x x
Based on the above analysis, the framework proposed by Piper (1993) can be used as a
systematic guideline for effective learning within the university. The main attributes for
components in the EE context are equipped from the framework proposed by Herrmann et al.
(2008). Since all above-mentioned systematic frameworks do not have the Assurance of
Learning component, a systematic framework is thus proposed in this research for a better
understanding that fills out the research gap from literature.
According to the research gap from literature, the following research questions are
formulated:
RQ-1: What is the systematic framework of entrepreneurship education for effective learning
within a university context?
RQ-2: How is the systematic framework of entrepreneurship education for effective learning
within a university context?
The objective of this research is to build a systematic framework for entrepreneurship education
within a university context.
BUILDING THE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Conceptual framework possesses ontological, epistemological, and methodological
assumptions, and each concept within a conceptual framework plays an ontological or
epistemological role. The ontological assumptions relate to knowledge of the way things are, the
nature of reality, real existence, and real action. The epistemological assumptions relate to how
things really are and how things really work in an assumed reality. The methodological
assumptions relate to the process of building the conceptual framework and assessing what it can
tell us about the real world (Jabareen, 2009). Based on the title of Building a systematic
framework for entrepreneurship education, the meaning of entrepreneurial graduate will be
discussed in Phase 1 as the ontological assumptions; the question of how do we know who
entrepreneurial graduates really are? will be discussed in the Phase 2 as the epistemological
assumptions; and the question of how do we build the entrepreneurial graduates within a
university context? will be discussed in Phase 3 as the methodological assumptions. The
procedures to build a conceptual framework are as follows:
Phase 1: Mapping definition of entrepreneurial graduate (ontological assumptions).
Ontology is defined as the study of being (Crotty, 2003). It is concerned with what kind
of world we are investigating, with the nature of existence, with the structure of reality as such.
Guba & Lincolin (1989 as cited in Adam, 2014) state that the ontological assumptions are those
that respond to the question of what is there that can be known? or what is the nature of reality?
Blaikie (2000 as cited in Adam, 2014) states that ontology refers to claims and
assumptions that are made about the nature of social reality, claims about what exists, what it
Page 83
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
looks like, what units make it up and how these units interact with each other. The reality of what
exists is ontology. It is about asking about what constitutes reality and how we understand its
existence. Ontology is the science or the analysis of what is and how it is (Foerster, 1996 as cited
in Adam, 2014). Ontology is all about the nature of the world around us. Particularly, it is about
the small part of reality which the researcher chooses to address.
The topic of this research concerns a phenomenon which is about the building of a
systematic framework for EE to develop entrepreneurial graduates. This phenomenon of
entrepreneurial graduates is important to investigate because some countries have a low number
of established businesses that can contribute significantly to economic development. According
to literature, the way to improve well-established business is through entrepreneurship education.
Entrepreneurship education has a vital role in guiding all students to become more
entrepreneurial-minded (entrepreneurial graduates). The entrepreneurial-minded leads the
students to become successful entrepreneurs.
Based on the topic of this research, the ontological questions are what is the form and
nature of reality in the entrepreneurial graduates? and how can we understand its existence of
entrepreneurial graduates? The answer to these questions, the nature of reality for the
entrepreneurial graduate is external to the researcher and represented by objects in space. The
reality of the entrepreneurial graduate can be captured by our senses and predicted.
The nature of reality is that the role of entrepreneurs has been respected as a great
contributor to economic development in most nations. Nations will develop faster if they have
high quality, creative, and innovative entrepreneurs that implement new ideas into practical
action in every business. This means the reality of successful entrepreneurs is assumed to be the
most important aspect in economic development. But in reality, some countries have a low
number of established business ownerships, due to a lack of education. In other words, there is a
lack of educated entrepreneurs that could be sustained in its highly competitive environment. The
reality of low-educated entrepreneurs leads universities to participate through creating
entrepreneurship education programs that are expected to create more entrepreneurial-minded
students (entrepreneurial graduates). In turn, the entrepreneurial graduates lead to the creation of
more successful entrepreneurs. An entrepreneurial graduate is objectively interpreted and
constantly emerges through a series of entrepreneurial processes (creative processes) within
education boundaries. This ontological position directly influences the view of what knowledge
about entrepreneurial graduate means.
The next task is to map the spectrum of disciplinary literature regarding the phenomenon
of entrepreneurial graduate. This process includes identifying text types and other sources of
data. The word entrepreneurial graduate can be found in the discipline of education within the
entrepreneurship context. Thus, the headword of Entrepreneurial and Graduate are defined based
on dictionaries. The mapping of the definition can be seen in Table 6.
Table 6
MAPPING OF THE DEFINITION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL GRADUATE (ONTOLOGICAL
ASSUMPTIONS)
WORD DEFINITION REFERENCES
Entrepreneu An adjective word relating to a person who (American Heritage Dictionary of the
Page 84
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 6
MAPPING OF THE DEFINITION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL GRADUATE (ONTOLOGICAL
ASSUMPTIONS)
WORD DEFINITION REFERENCES
rial organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a
business venture.
English Language, 2011)
An adjective word relating to an entrepreneur;
entrepreneurial risks
(WordNet 3.0, Farlex Clipart Collection,
2012)
An adjective word; willing to take risks in
order to make a profit
(WordNet 3.0, Farlex Clipart Collection,
2012)
An adjective word; characterized by the taking
of financial risks in the hope of profit;
enterprising: an entrepreneurial culture,
entrepreneurial spirit thrives on meeting the
next challenge
(Entrepreneurial, n.d.)
Graduate
A person who has received a degree from a
university or college.
(Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and
Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and
Allied Health, 2003)
A person who has been awarded a first degree
from a university or college; a student who has
completed a course of studies at a high school
and received a diploma
(Collins English Dictionary, 2003)
A person who has received a degree or
diploma on completing a course of study at a
university, college, or school; a student who
holds a bachelor's or first professional degree
and is studying for an advanced degree.
(Random House Kernerman Webster's
College Dictionary, 2010)
A holder of an academic degree or diploma; a
person who has successfully completed a
course of study or training, especially a person
who has been awarded an undergraduate or
first academic degree.
(Graduate-1, n.d).
Receive an academic degree upon completion
of one's studies
(Graduate-2, n.d).
A person who has successfully completed a
course of study or training, especially a person
who has been awarded an undergraduate or
first academic degree.
(Graduate-3, n.d).
According to the definitions from dictionaries, Entrepreneurial Graduate is a person who
has successfully completed a study that has the spirit or mindset, behavior, attitude, and skills of
an entrepreneur, such as opportunity-seeking, initiative-taking, ownership of development,
commitment to see things through, personal locus of control (autonomy), intuitive decision-
making with limited information, networking capacity, strategic thinking, negotiation capacity,
selling/persuasive capacity, achievement orientation, and the willingness to take risk in order to
make a profit, and addresses economic and social needs.
Phase 2: Identifying and naming concepts (epistemological assumptions)
The aim in this phase is to read and reread the selected data and discover concepts. This
phase answers the question of how do we know what entrepreneurial graduates really are?
Generally, this phase allows concepts to emerge from the literature.
Page 85
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Epistemology is a way of understanding and explaining how we know what we know.
Epistemology is also concerned with providing a philosophical grounding for deciding what
kinds of knowledge are possible and how we can ensure that they are both adequate and
legitimate (Crotty, 2003).
According to Blaikie (2000 as cited Adam, 2014) epistemology is the possible ways of
gaining knowledge of social reality, whatever it is understood to be. Epistemology refers to the
theory of knowledge, particularly how we acquire knowledge. It is best understood as the science
to analyze the way of human beings comprehend knowledge about what is perceived to exist
(Niehaves, 2005 as cited in Adam, 2014). Epistemological assumptions about a research issue
under investigation concern the criteria by which valid knowledge about that phenomenon may
be constructed (Chua, 1986 as cited in Adam, 2014). It is the theory about reality and is
concerned with how we come to know what we know. There is a connection between a theory of
reality (epistemology) and reality itself (ontology) (Adam, 2014).
For the epistemological question of how do we know what entrepreneurial graduates
really are? The answer is constrained by the answer to the ontological question above. This
means that any relationship cannot be assumed. The knowledge of the entrepreneurial graduate is
objective and generated deductively from theory of entrepreneurship education.
The knowledge and concept of the entrepreneurial graduate are created in interaction
between people and their environment (learning process) within education boundaries. With this
view, knowledge of the entrepreneurial graduate is seen as objective constructs. This
epistemological assumptions directly influence how the knowledge of Entrepreneurial Graduate
is produced.
An important factor that cannot be ignored from the entrepreneurial graduate is
entrepreneurial competency; Obschonka et al. (2011) found that early entrepreneurial
competence in adolescence had a positive effect on making progress in the venture creation
process. Thus, the entrepreneurial graduate is characterized by having entrepreneurial
competence.
Competence encompasses knowledge, skills and abilities (Argyris, 1993 as cited in
Markowska, 2011). Knowledge is defined as understanding acquired through education and
experience; skills are defined as experientially-acquired procedural knowledge, and ability is the
aptitude to use knowledge and skills. In an entrepreneurship context, the knowledge, skills and
abilities relate to building the capacity to successfully create new means-ends frameworks
(Sarasvathy, 2001). Entrepreneurial competencies that are commonly inherent in entrepreneurs
are identifying and evaluating business opportunities, decision-making, networking, identifying
and solving problems, oral communication abilities, and innovative thinking (Izquierdo et al.
2005).
Phase 3: Constructing the methodological assumptions of the entrepreneurial graduate.
Methodology is the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and
use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of the methods to the desired outcomes
(Crotty, 2003). The methodological aspect of the theory of knowledge (epistemology) explains
how a researcher forms perceptions about a phenomenon being investigated. The methodology
refers to the modes of acquiring knowledge about the phenomena. One way of achieving this is
through induction. Induction is understood as the extension from individual cases to universal
cases. An inductive conclusion means the transfer from (observed, empirical) individual cases to
a universal law. On the other hand, knowledge can be acquired through a deductive method.
Page 86
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Deduction is the derivation of a statement from other statements with the help of logical
conclusions. It is the derivation of the individual from the universal (Becker & Niehaves, 2007 as
cited in Adam, 2014).
The question under the methodological assumptions is of how a researcher forms
perceptions about the phenomenon of the entrepreneurial graduate? The transactional nature of
this research topic is acquired through the deductive method. It is important to study the previous
literature regarding how to develop entrepreneurial graduates, so that it can be synthesized in
building a systematic framework. To answer the methodological question of how the researcher
will go about finding whatever (s)he believes can be known is through other statements with the
help of logical conclusions. The methodological assumptions of how to develop entrepreneurial
graduate is a longitudinal process of social interaction within education boundaries and it should
have consequences for the theoretical framework of entrepreneurship education and use of theory
in the entrepreneurship education field.
Developing entrepreneurial graduates is therefore essential to our future success
(Herrmann et al. 2008). It means that the entrepreneurial graduate leads to becoming a successful
entrepreneur as a job creator. Entrepreneurial competencies as the important factors embedded
within the entrepreneurial graduate will be discussed in this phase. To answer the question of
how do we build that entrepreneurial graduate within a university context, is through discussion
of how to build the entrepreneurial competencies. This assumption is based on characterizing the
entrepreneurial graduate as having entrepreneurial competencies. This phase describes the
phenomena from the previous literatures.
The importance of entrepreneurial competence development to entrepreneurial action is
well-established. Research suggests that competence reflects the ability to effectively interact
with the environment (Skinner, 1995). Johannisson (1991) recognizes that entrepreneurial
competence, except for knowledge (know-what) and skills (know-how), also requires the
development of appropriate attitudes and motives (know-why), social skills (know-who) and
insights (know-when). The know-when competence in particular gains value in dynamic
environments.
Entrepreneurial competence development can be studied from the input side (triggers to
competence), process (task or behavior leading to competence), or consequences (outcomes of
achieving standards of competence). There is also emerging research on triggers of competence
development, specifically the process and the consequences of it. Previous research of
entrepreneurial competence development can be seen in Table 7 (Markowska, 2011).
Page 87
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 7
PREVIOUS RESEARCHES ON ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORS TRIGGERS PROCESS CONSEQUENCES
Chandler and Jansen
(1992)
Roles (not available) Venture success
(growth and
profitability)
Chandler and Hanks
(1994)
Roles
Self-efficacy
(not available) Venture performance
Bird (1995) Motive/trait
Self-concept
Social role
Skills
Entrepreneurial
Learning
Venture success
Schmitt-Rodermund
(2004)
Contextual input (including
role models)
Beliefs (self-concept, self-
efficacy)
Achievement orientation
(not available) Entrepreneurial
success
Man (2005) Self-image/social role
Motive
Trait
Entrepreneurial
Learning
(not available)
Man (2006) (not available) Entrepreneurial
Learning
Entrepreneurial
success
Markowski (2011) Beliefs, Goals, Contextual
Embeddedness
Entrepreneurial
Learning
Potential domain
expertise,
entrepreneurial
identity
As the consequence, increasing levels of competence do not automatically result in expertise.
Bird (1995) makes an important distinction between competence as contributing to excellence in
performance and competence as a minimum standard or a baseline. The competencies necessary
to launch a venture or implement a business idea may be conceived as baseline competence and
highly-effective entrepreneurs (excellent competence) are those that go beyond launch into
organizational survival and growth.
Therefore, according to recent research for the framework focus on EE, this phase
discusses factors related to entrepreneurial competence within the educational institution setting,
encompassing triggers, process, and consequence. The important aspect in EE is setting goals,
which assumes the role of the trigger in creating the appropriate process to develop
entrepreneurial competence. Goals are an inherent aspect of intentional goal-directed behavior.
The extant literature on goals affirms that they can be used by individuals as a self-management
technique to arrive at aspired outcomes (Bandura, 1977). The goals of EE should be connected to
learning (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008). Two general orientations have been distinguished: learning
and performance orientation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988 in Markowska, 2011).
Learning orientation allows individuals to treat failures as challenges and learn from
them, while performance orientation is beneficial in situations when results are expected.
Individuals with learning orientation search for challenges and learning opportunities and are not
afraid of experimenting and trying new things, because their focus is on attaining more
competence and skills (Wood & Bandura, 1989). On the other hand, individuals who set
performance goals are more inclined to refrain from trying new, often-challenging tasks because
they want to remain within their perception of intelligence. They see new challenges as
threatening their identity and their perception of their capability (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Thus,
Page 88
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
to see entrepreneurs grow and develop their entrepreneurial competencies requires that they have
a learning approach that sees failures and obstacles as challenges and opportunities for learning.
Learning goals are better when the task at hand is more complex, as is usually the case in
entrepreneurship or when the outcomes are unknowable (Noel & Latham, 2006).
The process of competence development is defined as a change in what an entrepreneur is
capable of doing, and it refers to a change in the pattern of action coming from the use of
available means (Markowska, 2011). Some researchers argue that the different modes of
knowledge acquisition can produce different outcomes as they build upon different experiences.
Thus, competence development reflects an ability to acquire and use new means (i.e.
knowledge). The ability to acquire new knowledge is referred to as learning (Corbett, 2007).
Subsequently, learning is seen as a skill that underlies capability development. Thus,
understanding how entrepreneurial competence develops requires an understanding of
entrepreneurial learning (Markowska, 2011).
The consensus among scholars is that to become entrepreneurial is through direct
experience, i.e. learning-by-doing or direct observation (Lackeus, 2013). Hence, entrepreneurial
learning is the only way to promote entrepreneurial graduates that have entrepreneurial
competencies. The extant literature considers entrepreneurial learning as the main vehicle for
competence development (Markowska, 2011). Entrepreneurial learning covers a wide variety of
audiences, objectives, contents and pedagogical methods. In this context, the methodological
assumptions relate to the educational level that designs an educational program around five
specific interrelated questions, which should be addressed in the following order (Fayolle et al.
2006):
(a) Why (objectives, goals)?
(b) For whom (targets, audiences)?
(c) For which results (evaluations, assessments)?
(d) What (contents, theories)?
(e) How (methods, pedagogies)?
Phase 4: Integrating concept
The aim in this phase is to integrate the process in phases 1, 2 and 3; and to group
together the concept that emerges from literatures. This phase describes the ontological,
epistemological and methodological assumptions related to entrepreneurial graduate. The
framework is illustrated in Figure 2:
Page 89
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Figure 2: The Framework of Entrepreneurial Graduate
EPISTEMOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS:
How do we know what the entrepreneurial graduates really are?
Objective and generate deductively from theory: The knowledge and
concept of entrepreneurial graduate are created in interaction between
people and their interpreted environment within education boundaries.
ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS:
What is the form and nature of reality in the entrepreneurial graduates?
How can we understand the existence of entrepreneurial graduates?
The importance of successful entrepreneurs leads to development of
entrepreneurial graduates. Entrepreneurial Graduate is objectively
interpreted and it is constantly emerge through a series of
entrepreneurial processes (creative process) within education
boundaries.
METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS:
How does a researcher form perceptions about the phenomenon of
entrepreneurial graduate?
Deductive method: Developing the entrepreneurial graduate is a
longitudinal process of social interaction within education boundaries
and should have consequences for the theoretical framework of
entrepreneurship education and use of theory in the entrepreneurship
education field.
Page 90
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Phase 5: Synthesis and making sense of it all.
The aim in this phase is to synthesize concepts into a theoretical framework. This process
is iterative and includes repetitive synthesis until the general theoretical framework makes sense.
This phase is explained through an in-depth discussion of how to build entrepreneurial graduates
in educational level.
The EE has goals to develop entrepreneurial graduates who achieve standards of
competencies, whether as professionals or entrepreneurs. The institutional goals can be placed on
the input side as a trigger to develop the graduates’ competencies. In order to support their goals,
the university creates course content and establishes it into curricula related to its goals and
target audiences, and it needs an appropriate learning approach to deliver it effectively. To
achieve goals effectively, there are three key actors involved within a university setting, namely
students, staff, and institution. They have their own attributes in the education process, such as
the ability, opportunity and incentive aspects (Piper, 1993). This framework is used as a
guideline for effective learning within a university. The framework for EE can be seen in Figure
3.
Figure 3: The Framework of Effective Learning for Entrepreneurship Education
STUDENTS
What makes learning
effective?
HAVE ABILITY TO LEARN:
Recruitment and selection of
students
HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO
LEARN:
Curriculum;
Institutional support
HAVE INCENTIVE TO LEARN:
Grants;
Grading schema (weighting)
STAFF
What makes teaching
effective?
IMPROVING ABILITY TO
LEARN:
Learning evaluation (Direct
Assessment)
IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY
TO LEARN:
Teaching methods;
Lecturer roles
IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO
LEARN:
Rewards within and outside
class;
Participation
INSTITUTION
What makes a teaching
organization effective?
IMPROVING ABILITY TO
TEACH:
Recruitment and selection of
lecturer; Training; Performance
appraisal
IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY
TO TEACH:
Workload
Knowledge sharing;
Freedom in teaching;
Learning Material Support;
Fund Allocation
IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO
TEACH:
Pay and incentive schema;
Life and health insurance;
Rewards for innovative
teaching
ASSURANCE OF LEARNING
? Desirable qualities of the graduates must be stated explicitly.
? Use an outcome-based approach to gain the key area of learning.
? Systematically gather evidence from measurement
? Analyze and interpret evidence to ensure goals are met and to get continuous
improvement.
Page 91
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Assurance of learning refers to the process of maintaining standards of learning reliably
and consistently by applying criteria of success in a program (Mishra, 2007). The approach to
achieve students’ learning outcome is by using a continuous improvement cycle, akin to a Plan-
Do-Check-Action cycle. The first loop depicts students’ competences after completing the
program and is guided by the vision, mission and values of the institution, which in turn informs
the learning goals and learning objectives of the program. The second loop depicts the
opportunities provided by institution and is considered through curriculum design, mapping to
course-learning objectives, and subsequent delivery of courses that provide students
opportunities to learn the knowledge, skills and values laid out in program-learning goals,
program-learning objectives, and course-learning objectives. The third loop depicts assessment
to see whether the students have learnt the desired learning objectives, collects evidence and
checks whether there are gaps. The final loop involves analyzing and interpreting evidence and
also involves adjustments to program elements or teaching methods in order to improve student
learning outcomes where most needed (Mabin & Marshall, 2011).
Phase 6: Resynthesize the concept and build the entrepreneurial learning framework
The challenge after proposing the framework of effective learning for EE is to adapt it in
a systematic framework with logical sense. This phase is a resynthesize from several concepts
and is reintegrated to build the systematic framework of EE in order developing entrepreneurial
graduates. A systematic framework for entrepreneurship education can be seen in Figure 4.
Page 92
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEUR
HAVE EXCELLENT
ENTREPRENEURIAL
COMPETENCE
? (Hytti & Kuopusjarvi, 2004):
Offering quality jobs
? Gorgievski et al. (2011):
Profitability; Growth,
Innovation; Giving back to
society; Personal
satisfaction,;Satisfied
stakeholders; Good balance
between work and private life,
Public recognition, Usefulness
ENTREPRENEURIAL GRADUATE
HAVE BASELINE ENTREPRENEURIAL
COMPETENCE:
Identifying and evaluating business
opportunities; Identifying and solving
problems; Decision making; Networking,
Oral communication abilities; Innovative
thinking (Izquierdo et al., 2005)
STAFF
IMPROVING ABILITY TO LEARN
Learning evaluation (Direct assessment)
IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN
Teaching methods
Lecturer’s role
IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO LEARN
Rewards within and outside class
Participation / peer review
INSTITUTION
IMPROVING ABILITY TO TEACH
Recruitment and selection, Training,
Performance appraisal
IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY TO TEACH
Workload, Knowledge sharing, Freedom in
teaching, Learning material support, Fund
allocation
IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO TEACH
Pay and incentive schema, Life and health
insurance, Rewards for innovative teaching
STUDENT
HAVE ABILITY TO LEARN
Recruitment and selection
HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO
LEARN
Curriculum
Institutional support
HAVE INCENTIVE TO LEARN
Grants
Grading schema
A
S
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
O
F
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
Figure 4: A Systematic Framework for Entrepreneurship Education to Develop Entrepreneurial Graduates
The entrepreneurial graduates who have baseline entrepreneurial competence are capable
of launching new ventures. The graduates who have excellent entrepreneurial competence after
Page 93
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
completing the entrepreneurial learning within the university will sustain and grow beyond
launch to becoming successful entrepreneurs. The criteria of successful entrepreneur include
capability to offer quality jobs (Hytti & Kuopusjarvi, 2004); high profitability; significant
business growth; unique business innovation; business contribution to society; personal
satisfaction for the entrepreneur; stakeholders’ satisfaction with the entrepreneur; the
entrepreneur has a good balance between work and private life; the business has good public
recognition; and the product or service has valuable usefulness for consumers (Gorgievski et al.
2011).
DISCUSSION
The main finding from this conceptual research is the conceptual model analysis of a
systematic framework for EE to develop entrepreneurial graduates. This framework covers all
key actors within the university; each actor has its own role to create an effective learning
process. The scientific contribution from this research is the use of this proposed systematic
framework for several goals: (a) as a guideline for effective learning to develop entrepreneurial
graduates; (b) to understand the priorities for effective learning to develop entrepreneurial
graduates; (c) to help university management to understand the key stakeholders’ needs to
develop entrepreneurial graduates; (d) to identify areas of opportunity for learning improvement.
There are three conditions that are necessary for students to perform satisfactorily: they
must have the ability to learn in order to undertake their studies involved (recruitment and
selection); they must have the opportunity to learn to conduct the studies satisfactorily
(curriculum, institutional support); and they must have incentives to learn in order to encourage
their willingness to study (grants, grading schema). The important aspects for staff members to
teach effectively are that they can improve their students’ ability to learn (learning evaluation);
their students’ opportunity to learn in order to conduct their studies satisfactorily (teaching
method, lecturer role); and their students’ incentive to learn in order to encourage their
willingness to study (rewards, participation). The environment is necessary for an educational
institution to make a teaching organization effective. It needs to improve the ability to teach its
staff members (recruitment and selection, training and development, performance appraisal, pay
schema); improve opportunities to teach its staff members to perform their work satisfactorily
(workload, knowledge sharing, freedom in teaching, learning material support, fund allocation);
and improve incentives so that its staff members are encouraged to do their work satisfactorily
(incentive schema, life and health insurance, rewards for innovative teaching).
Those three conditions are necessary as requirements for effective learning. The
university management can gain a better understanding of the three key stakeholders’ needs, so
they can make priorities to develop entrepreneurial graduates. Based on all aspects of learning
proposed, this systematic framework can be used to identify the areas of opportunity for learning
improvement within the university context.
The previous studies were limited to conducting evaluation of EE within an institution as
the whole system. The findings in the previous studies were partial and tended to focus on
students and institutions only. There are several studies which focused on input such as the
importance of student selection (Dhliwayo, 2008); the importance of entrepreneurial traits,
competence, and managerial skills to promote successful entrepreneurs (Ibrahim & Soufani,
2002); and the importance of internal motivation of the students (Gelderen, 2010). Most studies
were concerned with mapping entrepreneurship education. The mapping included popular
courses, existing teaching focus, curriculum of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship centers,
Page 94
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
teaching methods, periodicals used in the classroom, and technological support from an
institution (Co & Mitchell, 2006; Solomon, 2007; Varblane & Mets, 2010). Two other similar
studies were also conducted, with one focusing on teaching methods (Tan & Ng, 2006) and the
other focusing on learning processes in both the classroom and real world (Henry et al. 2005).
An experimental study on entrepreneurial education within the university level based on
the entrepreneurial-directed approach was conducted by Heinonen & Poikkijoki (2006). They
used a qualitative method combined with an observation to evaluate the approach feasibility and
applicability to entrepreneurial education. They also focused their study on discovering,
evaluating, and exploiting the core role of learning opportunities. There were other similar
studies, but they only focused on the impact of entrepreneurial education on students, such as
participant satisfaction (Abduh et al. 2012; Millman et al. 2008) and entrepreneurial intention
(Fayolle, 2006). Few previous studies researched or explored the support from institutions in
enhancing staff members’ competence. Therefore, this research tries to offer a fully-systematic
approach in exploring existing learning, with regards to opportunities, abilities and incentives in
learning or teaching. This systematic framework is expected to review the role of students, staff
members and the institution in creating satisfactory learning.
CONCLUSIONS
There are several important findings from this conceptual research. The first aspect is a
systematic framework as a guideline for effective learning to develop entrepreneurial graduates.
The second aspect is that the institution has to manage three key stakeholders to achieve learning
goals, namely students, staff, and the institution itself. The third aspect is the assurance of
learning to guarantee the students’ learning effectiveness that also has to be well-managed by the
institution. Previous studies mostly discussed learning and institutional supports partially. They
mostly focused their research on the opportunity to learn, such as programs, teaching methods,
and facility support. Few explored staff members’ competence and ways to improve the EE. This
research offers a fully-systematic approach in exploring existing learning, with regards to
opportunities, abilities and incentives for students and staff. This systematic framework is
expected to review the roles of the students, staff members and the institution in creating
satisfactory learning.
The scientific contribution of this research is a building process of proposed systematic
framework and the usage of a concept structure that is arranged according to a system that
functions as a guideline to view reality. It can be used to describe successful learning practices in
managing EE within a university. This approach is expected to enable the exploration of all
aspects, instead of only some aspects, which are necessary for effective learning to occur within
an institution.
It is expected that this conceptual research provides a guideline for practitioners such as
policy-makers, lecturers, researchers, and curriculum developers for the development of a
systematic framework for EE that is useful to develop entrepreneurial graduates, thus creating
more jobs and reducing open unemployment. In addition, this research will support clarity for the
qualification level of EE in order to promote more entrepreneurial graduates. The future research
suggested is conduct-mapping and evaluation to gain a better understanding of the effectiveness
of learning and institutional support. This mapping should be applied in several business schools
in order to gain insight regarding the best learning practices. Cross-case analysis can be
conducted to discover patterns that can be used to build a learning theory of entrepreneurship
education in developing successful entrepreneurs.
Page 95
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
REFERENCES
Abduh, M., Maritz, A., & Rushworth, S. (2012). An evaluation of entrepreneurship education in Indonesia: a case
study of Bengkulu University. The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 4 (4), 42-43.
Adam, I. O. (2014). The ontological, epistemological and methodological debates in information systems research:
a partial review. Unpublished essays from Dissertation. University for Development Studies, School of
Business and Law, University of Ghana. Retrieved March 8, 2015, fromhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2411620.
Alberti, F., Sciascia, S., & Poli, A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: notes on an ongoing debate. 14th Annual
IntEnt Conference. Italy: University of Napoli Federico II.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (Fifth Edition). (2011). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company. Retrieved March 8, 2015, fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Eaglewoods Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bird, B. (1995). Towards a theory of entrepreeurial competency. Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and
growth, 2, 51-72. JAI Press Inc.
Co, M. J., & Mitchell, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship education in South Africa: a nationwide survey. Journal
of Education + Training, 48 (5), 357-358.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, (2003). Harper Collins Publishers. Retrieved March 6,
2015, fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/graduate.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, (2012). Harper Collins Publishers. Retrieved March 6,
2015, fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/graduate.
Corbett, A. (2007). Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business
Venturing, 22(1), 97-118.
Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research: meaning and perspectives in the research process (3rd
Edition). London: Sage Publications.
Dhliwayo, Shepherd. (2008). Experiential learning in entrepreneurship education: A Prospective Model for South
African Tertiary Institutions. Journal of Education +Training, 50 (4), 329-332.
Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry. (2008). Survey of entrepreneurship in higher education in Europe
(Main Report), 199-202. Retrieved January 29, 2015, fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/poli...asures/training_education/highedsurvey_en.pdf
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Clerc, N. L. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a
new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30 (9), 701-720.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship
education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32 (7), 569-593.
Entrepreneurial. (n.d.). Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/entrepreneurial.
Framework. (n.d.). An Encyclopædia Britannica Company. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/framework.
Gelderen, M. V. (2010). Autonomy as the guiding aim of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Education +
Training, 52 (8/9), 710-721.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2013). Key indicators. Retrieved January 16, 2015, fromhttp://www.gemconsortium.org/key-indicators.
Graduate-1. (n.d.). An Encyclopædia Britannica Company. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/graduate.
Graduate-2. (n.d.). Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/graduate.
Graduate-3. (n.d.). Vocabulaty.com. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/graduate.
Gorgievski, M.J., Ascalon, M.E. & Stephan, U. (2011). Small business owners' success criteria, a values approach to
personal differences. Journal of Small Business Management, 49, 207-232.
Harvey, L. (2004). Analytic quality glossary. Quality Research International. Retrieved March 19, 2013, fromhttp://www.qualityresearchinternational.co m/glossary/assessment.htm.
Hegarty, C. (2006). It‘s not an exact science: teaching entrepreneurship in Northern Ireland. Journal of Education +
Training, 48(5), 321-322.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910610677036.
Heinonen, J. and Poikkijoki, S. A. (2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education:
mission impossible?. Journal of Management Development, 25 (1), 80-94.
Page 96
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Henry, C., Hill F., & Leitch C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught?
Part I. Journal of Education + Training, 47 (2), 98-107.
Herrmann, K., Hannon, P., Cox, J., Ternouth, P., & Crowley, T. (2008). Developing entrepreneurial graduates:
putting entrepreneurship at the centre of higher education. The Report made by CIHE, NCGE, and
NESTA, 1-40.
Hytti, U. and Kuopusjarvi, P. (2004). Evaluating and measuring entrepreneurship and enterprise education:
methods, tools, and practices. Small Business Institute, Business Research and Development Centre, Turku
School of economics and Business Administration.
Ibrahim, A. B., & Soufani, K. (2002). Entrepreneurship education and training in Canada: a critical assessment.
Journal of Education + Training, 44 (8), 421-430.
Isaacs, E., Visser, K., Friedrich, C., & Brijal, P. (2007). Entrepreneurship education and training at the further
education and training (FET) level in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 27, 613-629.
Izquierdo, E., Deschoolmeester, D., & Salazar, D. (2005, July). The importance of competencies for
entrepreneurship: a view from entrepreneurs and scholars’ perspective. Present at IntEnt Conference in
Reino Unido.
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49-62.
Johannisson, B. (1991). University training for entrepreneurship: Swedish approaches. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 3(1), 67-82.
Lackéus, M., Lundqvist, M., Williams Middleton, K. (2013, May). How can entrepreneurship bridge between
traditional and progressive education?. Presented at ECSB Entrepreneurship Education Conference in
Århus, Denmark.
Mabin, V.J. & Marshall, S.J. (2011). Beyond assessment: assuring student learning in higher education. Proceedings
of the symposium on assessment and learner outcomes. Retrieved February 3, 2013, fromhttp://www.victoria.ac.nz/vbs/teaching/publications/Beyond-Assessment.pdf.
Markowska, M. (2011)., Entrepreneurial competence development: triggers, processes, and consequences.
Jönköping International Business School Jönköping University. Unpublished Dissertation, 2011, pp. 28-40
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health (Seventh Edition). (2003).
Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. Retrieved March 6, 2015, fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/graduate.
Millman, C., Matlay, H., & Liu, F. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in China: a case study approach. Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15 (4), 802-815.
Mishra, S. (2007). Quality assurance in higher education: an introduction. The Director of National Assessment and
Accreditation Council (NAAC), pp.1-101. Retrieved January 29, 2015, fromhttp://www.col.org/sitecollectiondocuments/pub_qahe_intro.pdf.
Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship Education: A Review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact
indicators. Journal of Education + Training, 52 (1), 20-47.
Noel, T. W., & Latham, G. P. (2006). The importance of learning goals versus outcome goals for entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 7(4), 213-220.
Obschonka, M. Silbereisen, R. K., Rodermund, E. S., & Stuetzer, M. (2010). Nascent entrepreneurship and the
developing individual: early entrepreneurial competence in adolescence and venture creation success
during the career. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 121-133.
Ogbo, A. (2012). The role of entrepreneurship in economic development: the Nigerian perspective. European
Journal of Business and Management, 4(8), 95-96. Retrieved January 29, 2015, fromhttp://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/view/1937/1917.
Piper, D.W. (1993). Quality management in university (Volume 1). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing
Service.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary. (2010). Random House, Inc. Retrieved March 6, 2015,
fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/graduate.
Salamzadeh, A., Salamzadeh, Y. and Daraei, M.R. (2011). Toward a systematic framework for an entrepreneurial
university: a study in Iranian context with an IPOO model. Global Business and Management Research:
An International Journal, 3(1), 30-31. Retrieved January 29, 2015, fromhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530376.pdf.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to
entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26, 243-263.
Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping (Vol. 8). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Page 97
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, 14 (2), 168.
Systematic-1. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved March 26, 2015, from Dictionary.com
website:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/systematic.
Systematic-2. (n.d.). An Encyclopædia Britannica Company. Retrieved March 26, 2015, fromhttp://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/systematic.
Szirmai, A., Naude, W., & Goedhuys, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic development: an
overview. Oxford University Press.
Tan, S. S. and Ng, C. K. F. (2006). A problem-based learning approach to entrepreneurship education. Journal of
Education + Training, 48 (6), 416-428.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2013). The innovative and entrepreneurial university: Higher education,
innovation and entrepreneurship in focus. Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Economic
Development Administration. 18-20. Retrieved January 29, 2015, fromhttp://www.eda.gov/pdf/The_Innovative_and_Entrepreneurial_University_Report.pdf.
Varblane, U. & Mets, T. (2010). Entrepreneurship education in the higher education institutions (HEIs) of post-
communist european countries. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Place in The Global
Economy, 4 (3), 204-219.
Wadhwa, V., Aggarwal, L., Holly, K. Z., & Salkever, A. (2009). The anatomy of an entrepreneur: making of a
successful entrepreneur. Kauffman: The Foundation of Entrepreneurship.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conception of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex
decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407-415.
WordNet 3.0, Farlex Clipart Collection. (2012). Princeton University: Farlex Inc. Retrieved March 6, 2015, fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/graduate.
Page 98
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Page 99
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
USING THE BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS AS A
METHODS APPROACH TO TEACHING
ENTREPRENEURIAL FINANCE
William T. Jackson, USF St. Petersburg
Daniel James Scott, USF St. Petersburg
Nathan Schwagler, USF St. Petersburg
ABSTRACT
There has been considerable discussion and debate about the ability to teach
entrepreneurship. And while this debate seems to have ended with a resounding yes (Henry, Hill
and Leitch, 2005a, 2005b) there are still many unanswered questions. Even traditional
management scholars (Drucker, 1985) recognize the uniqueness of the discipline and encourage
an appropriate pedagogy to support that discipline. The same can be said for the true disciples
of the field of entrepreneurship (Kuratko, 2005; Katz, 2003).
Most recently, however, this discussion has turned to, not whether we can teach
entrepreneurship, but rather are we teaching it the right way. Neck and Greene (2011) called for
a re-evaluation of pedagogy to focus on teaching entrepreneurship from a methods approach.
Instead of dismissing the ability to teach entrepreneurship, the authors provided a warranted
call for pedagogical improvements. The purpose of this paper is to provide further
encouragement and support for not only this concept, but to offer a methods approach in
teaching financial methods in entrepreneurship classes. Specifically, financial issues that surface
using the business model canvas will be addressed and pedagogical recommendations will be
provided.
INTRODUCTION
Many faculty members in the field of Entrepreneurship give very little thought to the
relevance and efficacy of teaching the concepts of entrepreneurship in higher education. We, a
priori, assume away the controversy that has existed for a number of years. We know it is an
important concept, our students seem excited, and sometimes we even bring upon us resentment
and the wrath from other academics from other disciplines—which we interpret as we must be
doing something right. Recently, however, our framework of complacency was called to task by
two of the discipline’s leaders in entrepreneurial pedagogy (Neck and Greene, 2011). The
authors challenged the field’s academic community to begin approaching our teaching from a
methods perspective. It was clearly and carefully pointed out that:
“The current approaches to entrepreneurship are based on a world of yesterday—a world where precedent
was the foundation for future action, where history often did predict the future. Yet
entrepreneurship is about creating new opportunities and executing in uncertain and even currently
unknowable environments (p. 55)”
In addition, while the relationship of finance understanding and entrepreneurship
principles is critical for a successful entrepreneurial launch and sustainability, the concepts being
Page 100
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
covered in finance has been slow in progressing to keep up with this phenomenon. While
understanding ratio analysis and financial statements is relevant, issues facing the startup are
much more diverse and should be addressed from a methods approach as well.
The purpose of this paper is to operationalize the method approach of teaching
entrepreneurship as supported by Neck and Greene through the use of the Business Model
Canvas specifically as it relates to how we teach financial issues in entrepreneurship. The
approach of using the Business Model Canvas meets the six characteristics as defined by Neck
and Greene in that it: provides a set of transferable skills and techniques for new venture
creation; students walk away with a toolkit applicable for all startups; is founded on and
reinforces the creative problem solving process; relies on iterations for optimal results;
encourages experimentation; and is practiced again and again—not just in one class but across
the curriculum.
LITERATURE REVIEW
As mentioned in the introduction, the debate of the efficacy of teaching entrepreneurship
continues to exist (Wasserman & Hwang, 2012). This is true even after many successful
programs have evolved across the nation (and the world). Much of this proliferation of success
can be directly attributed to the members of organizations such as USASBE (United States
Association of Small Business and Entrepreneurship) and ICSB (International Council of Small
Business) as these organizations continues to emphasize pedagogy as one of their pillars. Much
of the controversy, however, is as Neck and Greene point out due to the focus of coverage in
many of those programs.
It is not surprising that there continues to be conflicting camps in regard to the
possibilities of success in teaching Entrepreneurship. Much of this debate it appears comes from
the continued lack of consensus in defining entrepreneurship itself which publically was aired in
the 80s (Carland, Boulton, & Carland, 1984; Gartner, 1985; Carland, Hoy, & Carland, 1988) and
continues to this day. While many have accepted the basic premise as described by Coulter
(2001) that entrepreneurship is simply the process where individuals create value through
innovation and uniqueness. Others define any small business (Gartner, 1985) as an entrepreneur.
There is even as Neck and Greene (2011) point out a return to attempting to associating traits
with the definition.
Unfortunately this has led to most entrepreneurship programs focusing on operational
skill sets that justify the acceptance of teaching these concepts to our students. For the most part,
we are still enamored with focusing on the business plan (Solomon, 2007; Neck & Greene, 2011;
Blank, 2012). This is especially true in many of the new international initiatives (Kobia, 2010;
Kirby & Ibrahim, 2011; Mwasalwiba, 2010). Or as Neck and Greene emphasize, “the analytical
approach of teaching opportunity evaluation, feasibility analysis, business planning and financial
forecasting is the cornerstone for most entrepreneurship curricula today” (p. 57).
Morris, Kuratko and Cornwall (2013) propose that entrepreneurial education should tie
closely to the need for assessment of individual program and that this can be accomplished by a
focus and scrutiny of competencies. As these authors indicate, competencies refer to
“knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and behavior” that results in the successful accomplishment
of a desired action. Due to the diversity of entrepreneurial programs across the nation and world,
no single desired outcome is unanimously agreed upon. Morris et al. go on to suggest that these
approaches may include business basics, entrepreneurship basics, or entrepreneurial thinking and
acting. If then the focus of the educational unit is true entrepreneurship and one of tied to the
Page 101
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
methods approach (Neck and Greene, 2011) these competencies may include: opportunity
recognition, creative problem solving, effecting change, innovating, or adaptation to name a few.
There are many others that have called for a different approach to teaching
entrepreneurship and others that have avowed that it cannot be taught. In one very
comprehensive study on entrepreneurial education, Solomon, Duffy and Tarabishy (2002)
strongly contend that teaching entrepreneurship is different that teaching other business school
subject matter. According to these authors, students must be competent in subject matter focused
on starting a business rather than managing a business. These students must also be able to thrive
in an environment of uncertainty and use the latest technologies to mitigate this ambiguity.
While Mwasalwiba (2010) contends that as a body of knowledge, entrepreneurship
education should be built on a “foundation of a common theoretical framework” and there exists
a lack of alignment. According to this author the answer is not to teach exactly the same subject
matter, but to at least agree to some commonalities that art taught by all using the same
framework.
In a follow-up to his well-recognized study in 2002 (Solomon et.al.), Solomon (2007)
further suggested that the challenge to educators will be to craft courses, programs and major
fields of study that meet the rigors of academia while keeping a reality-based focus and
entrepreneurial climate in the learning experience environment.
All of this discussion and debate clearly points to a need for better teaching methods. Few
programs have truly embraced the methods approach of teaching entrepreneurship which offers
tremendous opportunities in advancing the discipline and the student outcomes across the nation.
While there are many ways of moving to this more inclusive process, this paper focuses on the
use of the Business Model Canvas as a means to this end in the area of finance.
THE BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS
The Business Model Canvas is a tool that was created by Alexander Osterwalder to help
reach his aspiration “to change the way people design, test, and build strategies and
businesses…[with the intent of] bringing the best conceptual tools out there online and making
them so useful, practical and attractive that no business person can resist” (Business Model
Alchemist Blog). Even with its considerable acceptance, however, Osterwalder (2012b) has
found that there is a disparity in the sophistication levels of users. He has described these levels
of sophistication as:
• Level 0 Strategy – The Oblivious: Focus on products/value propositions alone rather than
the value proposition AND the business model.
• Level 1 Strategy – The Beginners: Use the Business Model Canvas as a checklist.
• Level 2 Strategy – The Masters: Outcompete others with a superior business model
where every one of the business model building blocks reinforces each other (e.g. Nintendo Wii,
Nespresso, Dell).
• Level 3 Strategy – The Invincible: Continuously disrupt themselves while their business
models are still successful (e.g. Apple, Amazon.com). (Business Model Alchemist Blog)
While the idea of a business model is a well-established principle in strategic
management circles, it has mostly been used as a descriptor rather than a tool for “managing”
operational concerns of a business. Business Modeling (not to be confused with the business
model) is a rapidly growing area in entrepreneurship. While this new interest has been primarily
Page 102
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
in the practitioner side, recent activity is being seen on the academic side as well (Solaimani &
Bouwman, 2012; Lindgren, 2012).
As suggested by Solaimani and Bouwman (2012), there are many theoretical concepts
and ontologies but few have utilized these frameworks for strategic purposes. This omission has
perpetuated the “lack of alignment between strategic ‘what to do’ and the operational ‘how to do
it’ (p. 655). The Kaufman Foundation recognized this omission in the space occupied by SME’s
and funded a major project to use this process to support innovation (Lindgren, 2012). Even the
United States Association of Small Business & Entrepreneurship (USASBE) got on board at its
last annual conference to hold special workshops of the increased use of the tool.
The purpose of this paper is not to re-teach the business model but rather to demonstrate
how the methods approach is appropriate to using the business model in teaching new techniques
in financial modeling.
The business model canvas (http://businessmodelgeneration.com/canvas) is becoming
increasingly prevalent as a pedagogical tool in the field of entrepreneurship. As defined by Alex
Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur in their book Business Model Generation: A Handbook for
Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers, “a business model describes the rationale of how
an organization creates, delivers, and captures value.”
THE BUSINESS MODEL ELEMENTS
The business model is composed of nine building blocks, positioned in such a way that
each block is adjacent to the blocks it most influences, and vice versa. On a more macro level,
the blocks are positioned to mimic the functionality of the human brain, with the blocks on the
left – Key Activities, Key Resources, Key Partnerships and Cost Structure – driven by logic, the
blocks on the right – Customer Segments, Customer Relationships, Channels and Revenue
Streams – dictated by emotion, and the Value Proposition block being the equilibrium point.
Page 103
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
In a similar vein, the blocks toward the top of the canvas are more abstract and
qualitative, while the blocks toward the bottom are more specific and quantitative. Of course the
“bottom line” is the most outwardly finance driven: Revenue Streams and Cost Structure.
THE FINANCIAL MODEL
Today, after students have completed their hypotheses regarding a given business model,
the major thrust of coursework is focused on product-market fit, where the assumptions tested
primarily revolve around whether the proposed value proposition is meeting the market need.
When considering the learning objectives of students in entrepreneurship courses,
engaging in exploration of product-market fit is absolutely critical. However, does it provide the
most complete, well rounded evaluation of the business model? Could this qualitative process be
bolstered and enhanced by adding integrated quantitative analysis?
Traditionally, and particularly in small business management coursework, a financial
forecast has been the option for allowing students to showcase their understanding of the fiscal
underpinnings of a business model. Yet there are several drawbacks to this type of analysis:
1. Revenues are forecasted without clear ties to a selected go-to-market strategy.
2. Operational costs are forecasted without clear ties to revenue and growth.
3. Financial statements are forecasted without rigorous testing of hypotheses in lock step
with product and market validation.
If the key learning objective for students is to develop a deep understanding of a
dynamic, high-growth potential business model, and the capital structure required to power it, the
traditional financial forecast should be replaced with a financial model.
Financial models differ from financial forecasts in that they place a premium on key
performance indicators over line-item accounting, what-if analysis over predictions, and ties to
business model hypotheses over display of detail.
THE LEARNING OUTCOMES
Key performance indicators (or KPI) are measurements that are used to evaluate the
success of a proposed business model. What-if analysis is the systematic process of changing one
assumed KPI’s value to see how that change affects the outcome of other assumptions in the
model. The key learning outcomes of using a financial model in conjunction with a business
model include the following:
1. Understanding the components of, and developing, a validated financial ask to support a
proposed business model.
2. Understanding the working capital structure, cash position, and capital burn rate of a
proposed business model.
3. Understanding the organizational resource needs to meet a proposed business model.
4. Understanding the cost structure of a proposed business model.
5. Understanding the true customer acquisition cost, life time value of a customer, and the
relationship between the two in a proposed business model.
Page 104
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE MINIMUM VIABLE FINANCIAL MODEL
Four of the nine business model canvas blocks can be associated with fifteen core KPIs
that allow for the stated learning outcomes.
Channels
Five distinct channel phases are considered in the Channels Building Block, whether
owned or partnered, direct or indirect:
1. Awareness
2. Evaluation
3. Purchase
4. Delivery
5. After Sales
Each of these five phases is crucial to consider when completing the canvas, and several
have direct impact on the Cost Structure Building Block. For example, Awareness and
Evaluation tactics directly contribute to Customer Acquisition Costs. Purchase, Delivery and
After Sales tactics may directly contribute to Cost of Goods Sold.
However, the most viable and measurable KPIs regarding the Channel Building Block
involve the Awareness and Evaluation channel phases, as they allow us to understand the
strategy for customer acquisition. The two KPIs for the Channel Building Block are:
1. Reach to Lead Conversion Rate. This percentage shows the expected conversion of
individuals targeted from Awareness to Evaluation. Those potential customers reached
must be identifiable, even if in aggregate numbers. To convert that individual to a lead,
that individual must be identifiable and have connected, even in a small way, such as
providing an email address on a website, with the company.
Page 105
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
2. Lead to Customer Conversion Rate. This percentage shows the expected conversion of
leads to paying customer, Evaluation to Purchase.
The table below demonstrates the relationship between Dave McClure’s Product Marketing
for Pirates: AARRR! Framework (http://500hats.typepad.com/500blogs/2007/06/internet-
market.html), also adopted into Steve Blank’s Startup Owner’s Manual, to the measurable Reach
to Lead to Customer framework, to the KPIs explained above.
Revenue Streams
The Revenue Streams Building Block allows students to develop strategy for collecting
cash from each targeted Customer Segment. The three KPI for the Revenue Streams Building
Block are:
3. Price, Average or Monthly Collections. The dollar amount of average revenue collected,
per purchase, from a customer.
4. New or Reacquired Customers. This percentage indicates the actual number of new or
required customers for a month. If billed monthly, the customer is not new nor
reacquired, but retained. If a customer is not automatically billed every month, they are
considered reacquired with each purchase.
5. Monthly Retention Rate. This percentage indicates the customers retained from month to
month. If automatically billed monthly, we would expect this number to approach 100%.
If a business relies on new or reacquired customers for each purchase, we would expect
this number to approach 0%.
Acquisition ? Reach
?
Reach to Lead
Conversion
Activation ? Lead
?
Customer
Acquisition Cost
(CAC)
Retention
?
Lead to
Customer
Conversion
Referral
?
Revenue ? Customer
Page 106
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Key Resources
The Key Resources Building Block allows students to communicate the most important
assets required to allow the business model to function as proposed. Typically, this would
include Physical, Intellectual, Human and Financial. The Financial resources will be determined
in the completion of a Financial Model. The Intellectual resources will be covered in the Cost
Structure Building Block. The Physical and Human resources are covered by the two KPIs that
follow:
6. Employee Count. The actual number of full-time equivalents employed by the firm
during the month.
7. Fixed Assets. The actual dollar amount of fixed assets on a firm’s balance sheet during
the month.
Cost Structure
The Cost Structure Building Block allows students to inventory the infrastructural costs
incurred to operate the proposed business model. The remaining eight KPIs are all elements of
the Cost Structure Building Block, and follow:
8. Cost of Goods Sold. The actual dollar amount of cost to produce and sell a product.
Dividing this dollar amount by sales will produce a Cost of Goods Sold percentage.
9. Customer Acquisition Costs. The dollar amount spent on all marketing efforts for the
month. This number can be analyzed by dividing it by Reach, to determine Cost per
Reach, Leads, to determine Cost per Lead, or Customers, to determine the Cost per
Customer.
10. Payroll Expenses. The actual dollar amount spent in compensating the Employee Count.
11. Other Operating Expenses. The actual dollar amount of Operating Expenses, other than
Payroll Expenses.
12. Days Receivables Turn. The average number of days to collect upon Accounts
Receivable.
13. Days Inventory Turn. The average number of days inventory is held before sale.
14. Days Payables Turn. The average number of days to pay on Accounts Payable.
15. Additional Capital Required. Also known as a “buffer,” an additional amount of capital
requested in a financing proposal to cover miscalculations or unforeseen costs.
These fifteen KPI can also be distributed into three elements of a minimum viable financial
model, with additional benefit derived from being aligned more easily with a standard business
plan.
Page 107
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Marketing
1. Reach to Lead Conversion Rate (%)
2. Lead to Customer Conversion Rate (%)
3. Price, Average or Monthly Collections ($)
4. New or Reacquired Customers (#)
5. Monthly Retention Rate (%)
6. Customer Acquisition Costs ($)
Operations
7. Cost of Goods Sold ($)
8. Payroll Expenses ($)
9. Other Operating Expenses ($)
10. Total Employees (#)
11. Total Fixed Assets ($)
Funding
12. Days Receivables Turn (#)
13. Days Inventory Turn (#)
14. Days Payables Turn (#)
15. Additional Capital Required, including Pre-Launch Fixed Assets and Soft Costs ($)
Page 108
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE MARKETING
The primary marketing tasks for translating a business model to a financial model include:
1. Delineate between user and buyer.
2. Understand that in order to reach a buyer; you must first identify who they are, what
message you will convey, when and where that message will be delivered, and why they
are the correct audience.
3. Select an optimized awareness channel or set of channels based on cost, assumed
effectiveness, and ability to scale.
4. Understand that converting an identifiable buyer into a lead, some exchange of value
must occur to validate the relationship is advancing.
5. Propose a plan to convert identifiable buyers into leads, then leads into customers.
After completing the primary tasks, students can then make hypotheses regarding their
optimized strategies regarding the six marketing KPIs.
Page 109
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE OPERATIONS
Operations, or the cost expression of operations, very often follow revenues during the
first year of a startup. For example, employees will be hired as needed – or as can be afforded.
Cost of goods sold also has its own set of considerations regarding availability, pricing and terms
of inventory that may also fluctuate with revenues.
For most student projects, benchmarks exist for costs, including those from the United
States Census Bureau and through the RMA Annual Statement Studies.
THE FUNDING
Page 110
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
When the cost of operations is removed from the revenue captured through marketing,
the students will have discovered the core of their financial ask – cash required to cover
operational costs. In addition, however, they will also need to take into account the timing of
cash in and outflow. Considering this final piece will provide students with their operating cash
requirements.
Above and beyond the day-to-day cash required, most business also require pre-launch
fixed asset and soft costs. Soft costs can include deposits, legal fees, etc. They may also wish to
add cash reserves to their financial ask to buffer any unforeseen issues.
CONCLUSION AND VALUE PROPOSITION
“Teaching entrepreneurship as a method requires going beyond understanding, knowing, and talking; it
requires using, applying, and acting. Entrepreneurship requires practice” (Neck and Greene, 2012,
p. 62).
In this paper first identified the need for teaching entrepreneurship from a methods
approach as opposed to relying simply on approaches that are slowly seeing their relevancy
diminish. Next an overview of Osterwalder’s and Pigneur’s (2010) book Business Model
Generation was provided. Lastly, an example of how finance could be incorporated into
entrepreneurial education was provided. While there are many ways to operationalize the
methods approach, the financial example provided in this paper would meet the six requirements
specified by Neck and Green—it provides a set of transferable skills and techniques for new
venture creation; students walk away with a toolkit applicable for all startups; is founded on and
reinforces the creative problem solving process; relies on iterations for optimal results;
encourages experimentation; and is practiced again and again.
REFERENCES
Blank, S. G. (2007). The Four Steps to the Epiphany (4
th
Edition), Quad/Graphics.
Blank, S. G. (2012). Blog: Business Model Versus Business Plan,http://steveblank.com/category/business-model-
versus-business-plan/.
Blank, S.G. and Dorf, B. (2012) The Startup Owner’s Manual: The Step-by-Step Guide for Building a Great
Company, Pescadero, CA: K & S Ranch, Inc. Publishers.
Carland, J. H., F. Boulton, & J. Carland (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A
conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9 (2), 354-359.
Carland, J. W., F. Hoy, & J. A. Carland (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the question worth asking?. American
Journal of Small Business, 12 (4), 33-39.
Coulter, M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in Action, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
DeTienne, D.R. and Chandler, G.N. (2004), ‘The role of gender in opportunity identification’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 31 (3): 365-86.
Fiet, J.O. (2001), ‘The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (2): 101-17.
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy
of Management Review, 10 (Oct), 696-706.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught?
Part I’, Education and Training, 2(3): 98-111.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught?
Part I’, Education and Training, 2(3): 158-69.
Katz, J.A. (2003), ‘The chronological and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education’, Journal
of Business Venturing, 18(2): 283-300.
Kirby, D. A. & N. Ibrahim (2011). Entrepreneurship education and the creation of an enterprise culture: Provisional
results from an experiment in Egypt. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 7, 181-193.
Page 111
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Kobia, M. & S. Damany (2010). Toward a search for the meaning of entrepreneurship. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 34 (2), 110-127.
Kuratko, D.F. (2005), ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, challenges’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3): 577-98.
Kuratko & R. Hodgetts (2004). Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, Practice, 6
th
Ed., Thomson South Western,
Stanford, CT.
Lindgren, P. (2012). Business model innovation leadership: How do SME’s strategically lead business model
innovation?. International Journal of Business and Management, 7 (14), 53-66.
Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F. and Cornwall, J.R. (2013), Entrepreneurship Programs and the Modern University,
Northampton, MA: Edward Elger.
Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact
indicators. Education and Training, 52 (1), 20-47,
Neck, H. M. & P. G. Greene, (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of
Small Business Management, 49 (1), 55-70.
Osterwalder, A. & Y. Pigneur (2009 and 2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game
Changers, and Challengers, Self-Published.
Osterwalder, A. (2012a). Blog: Help Change How Businesses are Built: Looking for Tech Co-Founders and Senior
RoR Dev.http://www.businessmodelalchemist.com/.
Osterwalder, A. (2012b). Blog: Drop Your Training Wheels: Competing on Business Models.http://www.businessmodelalchemist.com/.
Solaimani, S. & H. Bouwman (2012). A framework for the alignment of business modeled business processes: A
generic model for trans-sector innovation. Business Process Management Journal, 18 (4), 655-679.
Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, 14 (2), 168-182.
Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S. and Tarabishy, A. (2002), The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A
nationwide survey and analysis’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1): 65-86.
Wasserman, N. & V. W. Hwang (2012). Can entrepreneurship be taught? Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2012.
Page 112
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Page 113
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
DEVELOPING UNDERGRADUATE
ENTREPRENEURIAL CAPACITY FOR SOCIAL
VENTURE CREATION
Erik Noyes, Babson College
Benjamin Linder, Olin College of Engineering
ABSTRACT
Traditional college and university entrepreneurship programs focus on profit-maximizing
startups. We describe a new effort called Affordable Design and Entrepreneurship (ADE) to
develop capacity for venture creation that seeks to maximize social benefit. ADE is an
undergraduate program co-launched by Babson College, a top-ranked entrepreneurship
educator, and Olin College of Engineering, a recognized innovator in engineering education.
ADE changes the nature of entrepreneurship education by shifting the focus to social venture
creation opportunities in poverty-afflicted areas internationally (within India, Ghana, and
Morocco) and nationally in the USA (within Alabama, Massachusetts, and Mississippi). Here,
we detail the process by which a team of entrepreneurship and engineering students co-creates a
social venture with communities in Ghana. The analysis suggests options for institutions to offer
meaningful, experiential instruction in social entrepreneurship and sustainable enterprise.
Keywords: entrepreneurship education, social venture, human-centered design,
entrepreneurial experimentation, business planning.
INTRODUCTION
Upon surveying entrepreneurship programs, one will observe that the focus of
entrepreneurship education is much narrower than the known contexts for entrepreneurial action
(Vesper & Gartner, 1997; Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005; Corbett, 2011; Neck, Greene & Brush,
2014). Overwhelmingly, most undergraduate and graduate entrepreneurship programs focus on
independent, for-profit startups (Greene, Katz & Johannisson, 2004; Honig, 2004; Neck &
Greene, 2011). Yet, entrepreneurial thinking is known to be present and create value in social,
corporate and even governmental settings (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Shane & Venkataraman,
2000; Sarasvathy, 2009; Saifan, 2012).
Business plan creation, while important, accounts for upwards of 70% of all
entrepreneurship courses offered in the United States and is generally focused on traditional, for-
profit startups (Rich & Gumpert, 1985; Honig, 2004; Noyes & Brush, 2012). As such, it is
comparatively rare for entrepreneurship programs to offer courses on the different forms and
contexts for entrepreneurial activity. Family entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship,
different regional and international settings for entrepreneurship, and particularly social
entrepreneurship, are often neglected in the pursuit of what might be called a high-tech/high-
growth bias in entrepreneurship education (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003). Moreover, those
passionate to initiate social change through market mechanisms are often peripheralized in such
Page 114
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
programs and class settings because there is a need to teach core models, heuristics and methods
to establish for-profit ventures, generally serving a narrow group of stakeholders: customers,
venture founders and investors.
This is all against the backdrop of entrepreneurship research, which shows that the most
frequently used textbooks and teaching materials in entrepreneurship instruction are often not
reflective of the true behaviors of successful entrepreneurs--what entrepreneurs actually do in
pursuing, developing or identifying entrepreneurial opportunities (Edelman, Manolova & Brush,
2008, Noyes & Brush, 2012; Neck, Greene & Brush, 2014). Similarly, other research shows that
a high percentage of successful entrepreneurs never even create a business plan (Bygrave, Lange,
and Mollov, 2007). Recent research concludes that the process of planning is important, mostly
for the insights it yields, but a business plan is rarely an assurance of venture success.
Fortunately, approaches are changing to reflect greater realism concerning how entrepreneurs act
(Sarasvathy, 2009; Blank, 2013, Neck, Greene & Brush, 2014).
Accordingly, we highlight the importance of creative entrepreneurial action in the face of
deep uncertainty, particularly when one has social goals in addition to economic objectives.
Specifically, we consider the role of iterative market experimentation in social venture creation,
which may include but is not limited to: identifying social needs with stakeholders, determining
cultural and/or technical requirements for a technology, and prototyping and testing business
models to deliver a social benefit. The focus on the co-creation of entrepreneurial opportunities
with stakeholders, as well as on contexts where secondary industry studies are rarely available or
useful, each differentiate our focus from core entrepreneurship curriculum, generally based on
business planning.
Ideas about prototyping business models in close partnership with customers and
connecting with lead users to develop innovations are not new, particularly in high-tech/high-
growth venturing (Von Hippel, 1986; Blank, 2005; Osterwalder, 2010; Ries, 2011). However,
these ideas are less well known and generally less practiced in social entrepreneurship.
Moreover, those experienced in high-tech/high-growth entrepreneurship often have limited
experience designing and testing social ventures particularly in base of pyramid and emerging
markets where this thinking may be most valuable (Hart & Semanis, 2006). Arguably, it is with
social problems and opportunities where these design-based ideas are most appropriate because
resources are scarce, community stakeholders are the best judge of an innovation’s worth, and
venture-building is necessary to deliver the needed products or services sustainably. Exposing
challenges and progress alike, we detail efforts to create a new experiential social
entrepreneurship program called Affordable Design and Entrepreneurship, or ADE, which
grapples with this unique intersection between design thinking and social entrepreneurship.
We begin by identifying challenges in social entrepreneurship education. These
challenges are presented alongside the argument that experiential entrepreneurship education—
particularly, concrete experience and creative entrepreneurial action in complex contexts—can
transform students’ self-efficacy and ultimately their leadership potential for social venture
creation. Then, we give an overview of ADE, including the objectives and structure, and feature
a short case on an agricultural venture in Ghana supporting peri-urban and rural, cassava-
processing women. We end with a frank discussion of educational challenges and opportunities
suggested by ADE, which highlight sharp limitations of the current high tech/high growth-
focused model of entrepreneurship education.
Page 115
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
CHALLENGES IN EDUCATING SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS
Surveying the emerging field of social entrepreneurship, Saifan (2012) proposes the
following definition of a social entrepreneur: A social entrepreneur is a mission-driven individual
who uses a set of entrepreneurial behaviours to deliver a social value to the less privileged, all
through an entrepreneurially oriented entity that is financially independent, self-sufficient, or
sustainable. This definition is notionally useful for the purposes of describing social
entrepreneurship and challenges in educating social entrepreneurs, although from a design
perspective we would say the aim is to deliver social value with, or working alongside, primary
stakeholders.
In the social arena, key entrepreneurial concepts, such as venture stakeholders,
willingness-to-pay, product/service value and entrepreneurial leadership, take on highly stylized
meanings. Particularly, when the chief goal is to maximize social impact rather than economic
profits there are different motives when launching and then scaling ventures. The incentive to
launch a venture may be because of social problems and social opportunities that are neglected
by national or local government, NGOs, area social organizations, or even for-profit
entrepreneurs. The need to scale a social venture may come from the size of the social need (e.g.,
clean drinking water, affordable education, income generation opportunities for a group) and the
requirement to put in place a sustainable business model with the potential to yield a hoped-for
benefit.
Social ventures often have a large complex web of stakeholders—individuals and
organizations—who may support, benefit from, or have objections to a social innovation. To
have impact, these stakeholders must be enlisted early on and iteratively to co-create
entrepreneurial opportunities--opportunities that are socially desirable, technologically feasible
and ideally economically self-sustaining. This web of stakeholders, which transcends thinking
about “the customer”, competition or regulators, is generally more complex to understand for
social ventures than for traditional ventures focused only on economic returns.
Social ventures may create rich combinations of social and economic value. Charging
customers, including those who are severely resource constrained, may be a vital mechanism to
achieve social impact and achieve scale and sustainability. Product and service offerings for
resource-constrained target markets may require fundamentally different assumptions about what
constitutes a technology, what defines an innovation, and about the goals of a business model.
Deep and iterative engagement with stakeholders can clarify technology-venture fits as well as
business model requirements. In the discipline of design there is a vast gulf between “designing
for” a user and “designing with” a user—a subtlety that is generally lost in mainstream
management and entrepreneurship education.
Finally, the role of the entrepreneur can be quite different in foreign contexts, particularly
where the entrepreneur is non-native to the country or region where social ventures are explored,
founded or scaled. As such, existing methods to evaluate and shape the feasibility of
entrepreneurial opportunities—which generally assume shared culture—often do not port well
across unfamiliar contexts. The entrepreneur’s challenge is one of relationship building within a
set of stakeholders versus simple analysis, opportunity evaluation and resource marshaling. In
sum, the entrepreneurial team must engage all relevant stakeholders in identifying, shaping and
pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities.
Thus, those passionate about social entrepreneurship need to navigate complex cultural
and economic factors, where secondary data is rarely available or useful if it even exists. In such
Page 116
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
contexts, deep contextual engagement and creative entrepreneurial action with stakeholders often
trump removed, data-driven business planning. Key questions include: What stakeholders are on
the entrepreneurial team? How can the entrepreneurial team achieve the impact it hopes to? How
can technology and business innovation be combined to create new social benefits (and through
what sustainability-focused business models)? And for the entrepreneurship educator, how do
you teach entrepreneurial action and experimentation in such new and unfamiliar contexts?
These questions comprise the scope and focus of Affordable Design and
Entrepreneurship, an international, experiential social venturing collaboration described in
greater detail below. As a short case on venture-building collaborations in Ghana later suggests,
the movement of entrepreneurship education to decidedly social objectives and contexts creates
new complexity and new opportunity for entrepreneurship educators.
AFFORDABLE DESIGN AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ADE is entrepreneurship and engineering collaboration between Babson College and
Olin College of Engineering, both located near Boston, Massachusetts in the United States. The
mission of Babson College is “to educate leaders who create great economic and social value—
everywhere”. Comparably, Olin College’s mission is to “prepare students to become exemplary
engineering innovators who recognize needs, design solutions, and engage in creative enterprises
for the good of the world.” ADE represents an effort by both colleges to combine entrepreneurial
thinking and human-centered design (HCD) to spawn social ventures with measurable impact.
Entrepreneurial action, co-creation with stakeholders, and market tests—not planning—are the
foundation of social venture creation in ADE.
Curriculum-wise, ADE is an international, experiential social entrepreneurship course
jointly offered by both colleges with class meetings on both campuses and trips locally and
abroad to advance a portfolio of social ventures. Approximately 30 students enroll each semester
with most taking the course for one semester, although many take it for two. Students go on
work trips to their partner sites for about two weeks per semester. Past sites and partners have
been located in Alabama, Ghana, India, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Morocco and Uganda. The
inclusion of U.S. sites is a way to recognize poverty exists regionally everywhere in the world
and not just in least-developed countries.
Interdisciplinary teams of entrepreneurship and engineering students identify, develop
and deploy opportunities with social benefit in collaboration with partners. Whether they are
collaborating with agricultural villages in Ghana or rickshaw pullers in India, ADE students are
tasked to understand the unique needs and challenge their stakeholder’s face, to construct and
manage a co-design process and strive to generate a measurable social impact while fulfilling
other academic coursework and responsibilities. Success from the standpoint of an ADE venture
means a team can step away once a technical innovation has been deployed with a sustainable
business model.
A visual depiction of the product-venture portfolio is given in Appendix A, which shows
the stages of the ADE incubation pipeline and specific ventures. As a guide, exploring venture
opportunities with a partner requires one to two semesters; developing and scaling ventures can
take between three to six semesters (or 1.5-3 years). A particular challenge of the course is
exploring, developing and scaling ventures while students are entering and exiting the program.
As such, ADE has novel strategies, including multimedia repositories, knowledge management
processes, and the documentation of market experiments, to support venture continuity across
Page 117
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
semesters. A common metaphor used in ADE is that “students get on the bus and get off the
bus—but the bus never stops”.
The program requires an annual operating budget on the order of $100,000. These funds
are used to execute market experiments (i.e., to fund creative action), make investments in
prototypes and technology development, offset the costs of student travel to partner sites and
support adjunct team advisors. Support has been provided by corporations, foundations and grant
making organizations.
CASSAVA GRATING IN GHANA
The Ghana site team launched in the Spring of 2011 looking at several “Opportunity
Briefs” depicting social challenges and opportunities identified with local partners, one of which
detailed a need to mechanically grate cassava for gari production in villages in the Ashanti
region (see Appendix B). The opportunity was initially explored by the International
Development Design Summit in Ghana in 2009. Cassava, a vital crop in Ghana, is a root
vegetable responsible for 80% of the country’s carbohydrate intake. Gari, made from grated,
pressed and fried cassava, spoils less easily than the whole, unprocessed root. An opportunity
was identified for a small-scale machine to assist gari-producing women with the burdensome
and time-consuming task of grating peeled cassava. While cassava graters exist in market towns
and some larger villages, the majority of rural or village-level grating is done by hand and almost
exclusively by women. Mechanized grating translates to increased gari production and therefore
more food security, less physical exertion and time spent during the grating process, and
potentially new income generation opportunities and markets for women based on new
agricultural processing capability.
The following sections detail complementary efforts in technology development and
venture creation, which required the student team and partners to blend technical and business
innovation. Much of this work was done through the equivalent of $5, $50 and $500
experiments, a form of escalating assumption testing with technologies and markets that was
introduced to the program by Andy Hargadon at UC Davis.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
The team began with stakeholder engagements with community members in a peri-urban
village to explore the opportunity space and potential user needs for a cassava-grating machine.
A strong preference was identified for an electric machine over a manual one. Early on the team
developed and tested both grid- and photovoltaic-powered prototypes, and while both proved
feasible, the team considered the grid-based design to be a more viable entry point for a venture.
They found this configuration to have a significantly shorter payback period for gari-producing
women that were located in a more accessible peri-urban market with demonstrated demand.
The students then refined their prototype into a product through a series of co-design
engagements and pilot tests with gari-producing women in multiple villages. Affordability, ease
of operation, cleanliness and safety were all critical design considerations presenting a host of
technical challenges to solve, such as coming up with a grater head that users can remove and
service that is highly balanced and producible in volume at low cost. The team also collaborated
with local manufacturers to design the machine for local assembly and repair, which included
performing a number of fabrication and production tests together to refine the design.
Page 118
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
VENTURE CREATION
The team also concurrently explored business models that would make mechanized
cassava grating sustainable. They initially explored individual versus collective ownership, and
working with the chief and elders of a village, they piloted a business cooperative, comprised of
a number of village residents, which was unsuccessful. They investigated individual willingness-
and ability-to-pay through sales of prototypes as part of the pilot tests, establishing an
appropriate price point to drive affordability. They soon identified sub segments of the gari-
producing market, one of which was lower income women willing to band together to purchase a
machine, effectively creating a mini coop. These sales tests also identified larger existing gari-
producing coops that preferred a much larger machine.
Through additional testing the team settled on an individual ownership model over
alternatives, such as renting or leasing, and got to work on the sustainability of the model. The
pilot tests verified that the machine had a short payback period, less than one year, at modest
volume pricing. However, the women with the most need were found to have too little capital to
afford the machine without financing, so the students developed a micro loan service to
accompany the product for those stakeholders. Distribution was a significant challenge due to the
geographic spread of the primary beneficiaries, so they visited radio stations, ran tests with
agricultural shops, known as input dealers, and enlisted more experienced gari women to serve as
village-level entrepreneurs to trial selling and collecting payments.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Above we highlight only one of several ADE social ventures. In fact, there are four to
eight active ventures and projects every semester across our four partner sites (see Appendix A).
The challenges in operating such a joint, international, experiential program are significant.
These include securing funding to explore, launch and scale ventures; establishing
partners/partner sites in each of the geographies; formalizing processes to reliably drive deep and
meaningful engagement with partners; and, at home, dealing with significant cultural differences
between the two colleges, particularly the values and norms of an entrepreneurship college in
relation to a design-oriented engineering college.
The short case above does not examine the specifics of advisor-team relations, which
shape the co-creation process with partners and the final deliverables on a per semester basis.
There is a multifaceted process of negotiating scope with the partners, the advisor, and the
student team each semester to identify what deliverables are desirable, affordable and achievable
within the given time frame. Because students’ ability levels and motivations are mixed, advisors
often need to assume a player-coach role, not entirely driving the process with students and
partners but also offering strong counsel on priorities, thoughtful relationship management, and
how to handle unexpected challenges.
One particularly interesting issue, not examined here, is the class’ management of the
product-venture portfolio and specifically the need to prioritize, de-prioritize and shut down
projects within the ADE “firm”. As with all entrepreneurial efforts, there is a high risk of failure
for any given venture and success is far from assured. The students are given an ongoing role in
managing the product-venture incubation pipeline. This includes prioritizing projects for
investment based on their expected social impact relative to their resource intensity looking
across the full portfolio. Moreover, each student team is expected to develop new opportunities
with partners to feed into the ADE pipeline.
Page 119
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Overall, the administrative requirements to operate ADE are high, considering partner
relationship management, travel logistics, risk management, budgets and the challenges of
coordinating a two-college program. Nevertheless, the learning experiences suggest a number of
interesting directions for social entrepreneurship education, which is too often neglected and not
handled experientially in entrepreneurship programs.
SUMMARY
This paper started with the observation that 70% of all entrepreneurship courses offered
in the U.S. focus on business plan creation, generally for for-profit, independent startups.
Moreover, it discussed the far-reaching implications of an entrepreneurship education model
largely focused on high-tech/high-growth venturing as the most desirable form of
entrepreneurship. One unintended consequence of this focus is that entrepreneurship students
struggle to find meaningful social entrepreneurship courses—let alone social entrepreneurship
experiences—in the context of their education.
ADE suggests an approach where students can be pushed to see the limitations of
traditional business planning, particularly when creative entrepreneurial action is required to
pursue, clarify or identify entrepreneurial opportunities. The program is a learning lab where
students grapple with cultural, technological and business uncertainty. The greatest uncertainty—
and learning—comes from pursuing and managing a co-creation process with stakeholders to
explore, evaluate and seize social opportunities. “Designing with” stakeholders is much harder
than “designing for” them, but it is more likely to produce a social impact as well as experienced
young entrepreneurs.
We believe the ADE model can deliver on the promise of “ambidextrous” social
entrepreneurs who can bridge technical and business model innovation while managing the
inherent complexity and ambiguity. Rarely, is a social opportunity defined by strictly technical
or managerial or organizational concerns. Oppositely, entrepreneurial leaders who can blend
these two capabilities can pursue social opportunities in a wide range of settings with a wide
range of partners.
ADE is not a standard course in which students can participate passively. Thankfully,
committed students from both Babson and Olin Colleges self-select into the program based on a
desire to develop their entrepreneurial leadership and design capabilities in a social context.
Most, but not all, students emotionally commit to ADE because the opportunities and pressures
to perform are real. Broadly, a key opportunity for entrepreneurship education is to evaluate the
usefulness of business plan creation in complex social contexts and to embrace the uncertainty
and learning that comes from creative entrepreneurial action.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation, the
Toyota Foundation, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, VentureWell, Continuum LLC, the
Babson Social Innovation Lab, Verizon, and the U.S. Global Development Lab within USAID
for their generous support of ADE. Moreover, the authors would like to thank current and past
partners, including Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Keoladeo National
Park, Rickshaw Bank, Ecole Nationale de l'Industrie Minérale, Griot Arts Inc, Empower Design,
and the Alabama Hale County Empowerment and Revitalization Organization.
Page 120
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
APPENDIX A: SNAPSHOT OF THE ADE PRODUCT-VENTURE PIPELINE
Page 121
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
APPENDIX B: ONE OF MANY OPPORTUNITY BRIEFS PROVIDED TO THE GHANA
TEAM
Cassava Grating: Ashanti Region, Ghana
Motivation
Cassava is a staple food throughout Western Africa and many other tropical regions. In Ghana,
cassava is routinely grated to prepare value added products such as gari for sale or use as an
ingredient in domestic cooking. Grating is largely done by hand in rural villages, which is
laborious, time consuming and dangerous. In some cases tubers are transported in sacs to market
to be machine grated, which increases cost, or a traveling grater visit, which provides a limited
schedule. Small-scale grating machines reduce costs and increase production for local gari
women while reducing burden.
Proposed activity
Continue to deploy a low-cost, grid-powered cassava grater in villages in Ghana. Refine the
current production prototype to incorporate lessons learned from local fabricators and create jigs
and fixtures to begin production. Identify supply chain partners for key components, especially
an appropriate motor. Work with agricultural shops (input dealers) and others to start up
distribution and sales. Work with our partners to begin initial operations to take the next step in
scaling up.
Stakeholders
Small-scale mechanization provides assistance to local gari- producing women underserved by
existing machines in the market. These women report that they would use additional income to
grow their businesses, pay for school fees, and build new homes. Machine grating can displace
women hired to grate cassava causing a loss of jobs. Since cassava is extensively processed
throughout the tropical regions, a viable strategy could have widespread application.
Talents needed
Product interaction design, mechanical design, and fabrication with an emphasis on design for
manufacture, component selection, and sourcing. Business modeling, value chain analysis,
financial projections, market analysis, distribution and sales, operations management, and
communication skills.
Page 122
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Status
A small-scale, off-the-shelf electric grater has been developed and 3 initial units have been sold
to women in Adumkrom and PKK with requests for additional machines. A workshop was held
in Suame magazine to co-design with and train fabricators. Conversations were held with a
variety of potential distributers including ag shops, restaurant owners, and gari factory owners.
One machine was placed at an ag shop to gauge demand.
Partners
Technology Consultancy Center (TCC) and Intermediate Technology Transfer Unit (ITTU),
KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana. International Development Innovation Network.
A farmer demonstrating how cassava is harvested with a machete in Adumkrom, a small Ashanti
village near Konongo, Ghana, where ADE has a pilot grater.
Page 123
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
A woman hand grating cassava in PKK near Konongo, Ghana, who later purchased a machine
along with 2 other women.
Women in PKK testing an ADE grater that they purchased for 300 Ghana Cedis with a micro
loan as part of the pilot phase.
REFERENCES
Abu-Saifan, S. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: Definition and boundaries, Technology Innovation Management
Review, vol. 2.
Bygrave, W.D, Lange, J., Mollov, A., Pearlmutter, M., and Singh, S. (2007). Pre-startup formal business plans
and post-startup performance: A study of 116 new ventures, Venture Capital Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1-20.
Blank, S. G. (2005). The Four steps to the epiphany: Successful strategies for products that win. Cafepress.
Blank, S. G. (2013). Why the lean start-pp changes everything. Harvard Business Publishing.
Brush, C., Greene, P. & Hart, M. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of
constructing a resource base. Academy of Management Executive, special issue on Strategic Management
and Entrepreneurship, 15:1, 64-80.
Corbett, A. 2011. Finding your own way: entrepreneurship course development, strategic fit, and the problems of
benchmarking, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 13:1, 18-31.
Costello, C., Neck, H. & Williams, R. (2011). Elements of the entrepreneur experience. Babson Entrepreneur
Experience Labhttp://elab.businessinnovationfactory.com/sites/default/files/pdf/ELab-Elements-
EntExp.pdf
Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S.D. & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial
decision-making: Differences between experts and novices, Journal of Business Venturing, 24:4, 287-309.
Edelman, L., Manolova, T. & Brush, C. 2008. Entrepreneurship education: Correspondence between practices of
nascent entrepreneurs and textbook prescriptions for success. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 7:1, 56-70.
Greene, P.J., Katz, J.A. and Johannisson, B. 2004. Entrepreneurship education, Academy of Management Learning
& Education, 3:3, 238-241.
Hart, S. & Simanis, E. (2006) Expanding the possibilities at the base of the pyramid, Innovations, Winter, pp. 43-51.
Higgins, D. & Elliot, C. (2010). Learning to make sense: what works in entrepreneurial education, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 35, Iss. 4, pp. 345-367.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency - based planning. Academy of
Management Learning and Education. 3:3, 258-273.
Jennings, C. & Wargnier, J. (2010). Experiential learning: A way to develop agile minds in the knowledge
economy?, Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, Vol. 24, Iss. 3, pp. 14-
16.
Page 124
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Katz, J. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education 1876-1999.
Journal of Business Venturing. 18:2, 283-300.
Kuratko, D. (2005) The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends and Challenges,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 5, pp. 577-597.
Neck, H., Greene, P. & Brush, C. (2014) Teaching Entrepreneurship: A Practice-based Approach, Edward Elgar
Publishing, Northampton, MA.
Neck, H. & Greene, P.G. 2011. Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers; Journal of Small
Business Management, 49:1, 55-70.
Noyes, E. and C. Brush (2012). Teaching entrepreneurial action: Application of creative logic. Entrepreneurial
Action: Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, vol. 14, editors: A. Corbett and J.
Katz.
Osterwalder, A. and Y. Pigneur (2010). Business Model Generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers
and challengers. Wiley: New York.
Peterman, N. & Kennedy, J. 2003. Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 28:2, 129-144.
Rich, S.R. & Gumpert, D.E. 1985. How to write a winning business plan. Harvard Business Review, 3: 3-8.
Ries, Eric (2011). The Lean Startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continues innovation to create radically
successful businesses. Crown Business.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: towards a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to
entrepreneurial contingency, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 243-263.
Sarasvathy, Saras D. (2009). Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S., (2000), The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of
Management Review, 25: 21-226
Stevenson, H. & Jarillo, J. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management, Strategic
Management Journal, 11: 17-27.
Vesper, K. H. & Gartner, W. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business
Venturing. 12:4, 403-421.
Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts, Management Science, 32, no. 7: 791-805.
Page 125
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
EFFECTS OF TRAINING METHOD AND AGE ON
EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS OF MEXICAN YOUTH
ENTREPRENEURS
Héctor X. Ramírez-Pérez, Universidad Panamericana Guadalajara
Ann Marie E. Smith, Dowling College
Jorge E. Franco-López, Universidad Panamericana Guadalajara
Juana Román-Maqueira, Organization of American States
Elsa-Sofia Morote, Dowling College
ABSTRACT
This study examined the effects of two age groups of Mexican youths (18-25 years, n =
44, and 26-35 years, n = 48), within two types of entrepreneurial training programs (coached, n
= 26 and laissez-faire, n = 66) on employability skills (communication, teamwork and
organizing effectively). Participants completed a survey after participating in at least 1-year of
entrepreneurial activity. A 2 X 2 ANOVA evaluated the effects of age group and entrepreneurial
training on employability skills. The results showed that entrepreneurs from 26-35 years have
higher communication and organizing skills than entrepreneurs from 18-25 years regardless of
the training program. Additionally, young adult entrepreneurs (26-35), that participated in the
coached training program increased their communication and teamwork skills. These findings
support the recommendation of age appropriate training.
INTRODUCTION
Only 4% and never more than 11% of youths under 25 are self-employed (Organization
for Economic Co-operation (OECD), 2013). Increasing self-employment rates in youths can be
an important policy target to deal with a key economic issue of high youth unemployment
(OECD, 2013). A survey of 4,769 students (172 high school students and 4,597 college students)
and 326 employers from across the US found that 72% of high school students and 64% of
college students want to start a business someday. Millennial Branding and Internships.com, the
organizations that conducted the survey, found that 61% of high school students and 43% of
college students would rather be an entrepreneur instead of an employee when they graduate
college (Schawbel, 2014). With low self-employment rates, high unemployment rates and the
fresh interest in entrepreneurship, developing entrepreneurial attitudes and skills is strategic for
countries aiming to improve the economical and innovative trends in their regions while
simultaneously addressing the issue of high youth unemployment.
In Mexico, youths get involved in entrepreneurial activities at a higher rate compared to
youths from other countries (OECD, 2013). Furthermore, Mexico is recognized as one of the
more entrepreneurial countries of the world (do Paço, Ferreira, Raposo, Rodrigues, & Dinis,
2011). However, the survival rate of their companies is low and there is not enough research on
entrepreneurship education and training to develop their business skills (Morales-Diaz, 2012 &
Gajón-Gómez, Reyna-García, Armenteros-Acosta & Mijares-Villarreal, 2014).
Page 126
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Both institutions and entrepreneurs are debating whether entrepreneurship skills are
teachable or not. Wu and Jung (2008) found that entrepreneurs realize the benefits of training
programs once they participate in.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of training (coached, n = 26, laissez-
faire, n = 66), in Employability Skills of Emerging Adult (18-25 years, n = 44) and Young Adult
(26-35 years, n = 48) Mexican Entrepreneurs.
Definitions of Terms
Youth: for the purpose of this study, a youth is defined as a person between 18 and 35
years old. Participants were divided in two groups: 1) emerging adulthoods, ages 18-25 and 2)
young adults, ages 26-35.
Employability skills: are the proficiencies developed by an individual's long-term
capacity to build a career and to prosper in a labor market (Curtis & McKenzie, 2001 as cited in
Román-Maqueira, 2011). The employability skills this study focuses on are communication,
teamwork and organizing effectively.
Communication skills are oral, written, and nonverbal exchanges. Communication
contributes to productive and harmonious relations between employees and customers.
Teamwork skills are the skills used to work with different people in different settings that
contributed to productive working results. Organizing effectively is the ability to perform a
wanted result in an effective and efficient manner.
Entrepreneurial Training Program
Coached Method: the coached group received training that consisted of accessing a
mentor, financial assistance and technical support for the project through a youth
entrepreneurship organization.
Laissez-faire Method: the laissez-faire group received only information that they
requested through a youth entrepreneurship information network.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Youth is characterized differently depending on the discipline and context. The typical
definition of a youth is often expressed chronologically; however even within the chronological
framework, the actual age limit varies. The United Nations' World Program of Action for Youth
(2010) defined youth as people aged 15-24, while the African Youth Charter defined youths as
“every person between the ages of 15 and 35 years”. An additional characterization is an
individual’s lifestyle and behaviors. Viacom Brand Solutions International (VBSI) conducted a
study to explore the concept of the extension of youth and to understand the behavior of 25-34
year olds around the world. The study included Mexico, Argentina, Australia/NZ, Brazil, China,
Denmark, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Holland, Poland, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, UK and
USA. VBSI found that youths that are ages 25-34 years old considers themselves as “youth”. As
a result of this perception, they prolong their engagement and participation in youth culture
Page 127
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
(Brand Solutions Asia Pacific, 2008). It is becoming more acceptable for older people to
participate in youthful pursuits. People worldwide delay the onset of adult responsibilities and
stay emotionally and physically younger for longer.
This trend to prolong youth was also identified by The International Labor Office (ILO)
(2006). They considered the fact that more and more young people postponed their entry into the
labor markets well beyond the age of 25. There seems to be a shift in the characterization of
youths in Mexico and around the world. With this new characterizations researchers must
determine if it is appropriate to extend the parameters of youth to those older than 25 or create a
new subgroup that captures any differences in attitudes, expectations or responsiveness to
services provided to the youths.
Young people who start new enterprises are creating jobs for themselves and reaching
their personal goals. However, lack of experience and resources mean that a high percentage of
these efforts fail during the first few months of operation. To reduce the failure of youth
enterprises and address critical issues during the startup process, the public and private sectors
are increasing their efforts to support young people by providing training, technical assistance
and small credits (Llisterri, Kantis, Angelelli, & Tejerina, 2006).
In Mexico, the Federal Government works through the Instituto Nacional del
Emprendedor (INADEM, Entrepreneurship National Institute) to identify and support the
specific needs for each Mexican state (Ortega-Martínez, Cano-López de Nava, Salcido-Martínez,
Villarreal-Solís, & Villarreal-Solís, 2014). This support is critical for the identification and
preparation of Mexican entrepreneurs and small businesses. In 2007, there were 913,475
registered companies in Mexico. For each 100 companies, 5.8 were created and 2.8 failed
(Morales-Díaz, 2012). The sustainability of companies in Mexico is a critical issue for the
Mexican Government. While data shows that more companies are created than are failing, it is
important to understand that the failure rate for these new businesses is very high. Morales-Díaz
(2012) cited a study conducted by Headd (2003) that found that 66% of the companies in Mexico
survived only two years.
Cognizant of this crisis in the country, traditional and nontraditional institutions are
debating whether entrepreneurship skills are teachable or not. Authors defend that
entrepreneurship education should be part of all formal educational system because
entrepreneurship education can develop skills associated to entrepreneurship success, and that
entrepreneurs will need in the future (do Paço et al., 2011). Some entrepreneurs prefer to rely
more on themselves, but once they discover training programs, new horizons emerge in their
lives and they find teachable skills (Wu & Jung, 2008). Some entrepreneurs participating in
training programs find positive results. Participants that complete a training program gain a
better insight in marketing, finance, accounting, and business knowledge. Also training programs
increase skills such as self-confidence and networking skills (Bauer, 2011).
Entrepreneurship training programs achieve positive results in participants, but the
program itself will not assure success. The entrepreneur’s personality and his social environment,
along with participating in a training program, settle a higher chance to succeed (Uribe, De
Pablo, & Bonilla, 2013). Without denying training programs’ positive effect on entrepreneurs,
the programs do not always have the wanted impact. In a study involving women entrepreneurs,
one-third of the participants felt less or no effectiveness with the training program they took
(Nagesh & Murthy, 2008).
The culture constrains or facilitates the entrepreneurial activity, however the
entrepreneurs need to seek out and obtain training in order to sustain their business (Baughn &
Page 128
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Neupert, 2003). The human being grows and gains experience constantly. When an entrepreneur
has the personal, familiar, social, technical and environmental opportunities for an
entrepreneurial project, training becomes a trigger. Training provides continuous improvement
and development for entrepreneurship attitude and aptitude for success, connecting with values,
innovation and self-reflection (Elmuti, Khoury, & Omran, 2012).
The motivations of the entrepreneurs in their everyday social behavior influence their
entrepreneurial performance. The sensed difficulty to become an entrepreneur and the subjective
community rules and social pressure from the entrepreneur’s family to become an entrepreneur
are some examples (Montiel-Méndez, Márquez-Miramontes, Arámbula-Monreal, & Ordoñez-
Molinar, 2012). Other examples of influences are: 1) Personal abilities (self-control, discipline,
risk-taker, change oriented, and innovative attitude); 2) Personal and family environment; 3)
Educational, business and social background; 4) Communication and personal interrelation
abilities; 5) Business management and organizational skills (Moreno-Zacarías & Espíritu-Olmos,
2010).
In addition to individual attributes, the society also plays a role in the success or failure
of an entrepreneurial venture. Take for instance the relationships between universities and
industry. These institutions are critical components to successfully transfer knowledge
(Sherwood, Robinson, & Butts, 2011). The university transfers the research to the companies and
the companies transfer the experience and knowledge of the practical wisdom for increasing the
market and financial value to the university research. One key challenge for universities and
industries is to find the way to communicate effectively (Sherwood, Robinson, & Butts, 2011).
Entrepreneurship can be seen as a special form of employability. In Mexico, youths get
involved in entrepreneurship activities at a higher rate compared with other countries of the
OECD. Approximately 10% of youth, below 25 years old, are self-employed, similar to youths
from Italy, Greece, South Africa, and Slovak Republic. Overall, the percentage of youths
involved in entrepreneurial activities from other countries of the OECD is lower (OECD, 2013).
When academic institutions promote employability skills development, they are also
promoting entrepreneurship (Moreland, 2006). Employability skills are essential for students
finishing college to get recruitment in the competitive world. Students who just graduated from
college are low in soft skills during time of induction in a company. However, the impact of
conducting training on soft skills once the graduate starts in a company improves the
effectiveness of soft skills in job performance (Sahni, 2011).
Employability skills development is a duty of the university. A good academic institution
is concerned with the employability problem and should seek to integrate this issue into the
curriculum design (Parvu, Ipate, & Mitran, 2014). Employers can increase their stake in
employability skills development by working in partnership with universities on the core skills
they expect (Maxwell, Scott, Macfarlane, & Williamson, 2009). According to Maxwell et al.
(2009), the main competence among employers was communication skills, and problem solving.
Parvu, Ipate, and Mitran (2014) added that assuming responsibilities, team-working skills, and
disposition to steady effort are also important skills to learn. When students take part in formal
work experience and employers are involved in curriculum design, there is a positive effect on
the ability of graduates to secure employment (Mason, Williams, & Cranmer, 2009).
In Mexico, there is a lack of scholarly research on improving entrepreneurial skills.
Research on entrepreneurship usually focuses on women entrepreneurs or innovation, but not on
entrepreneurship development, education or training. A bibliometric analysis was made utilizing
the main scientific journals to assess how to develop, train and educate potential entrepreneurs.
Page 129
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
However, from a database of 10,000 publications, only 100 were publications related to the
innovation education and entrepreneurship development in Mexico (Gajón-Gómez, Reyna-
García, Armenteros-Acosta, & Mijares-Villarreal, 2014).
METHODS
This study is part of a larger study conducted by Román-Maqueira (2011), entitled:
“Latin American youth entrepreneurs: differences between coached and laissez-faire
entrepreneurial experiences in their employability skills and their entrepreneurial innovative
attitude”. The Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research at
Dowling College granted approval for the study. Additional approval was obtained, for the
coached group, from the International Youth Organization office headquarters in Arlington,
Virginia and the local offices in Latin America. Approval for the laissez-faire group was obtained
from the International Youth Organization office headquarters in Washington, DC. Respondents’
confidentiality was maintained and results of the study were provided with aggregated data. No
respondent identifiers were gathered at any time. The personal information requested from
respondents included age, gender, and country and city of residence. Román- Maqueira received
627 responses, of which she used 317 after eliminating the individuals who were not in the age
range.
For the purpose of this study, the data for youth entrepreneurs from Mexico was used to
analyze three main research questions. The research questions were:
Do the means of communication, teamwork and organizing effectively differ for
emerging adults and young adult?
Do the means of communication, teamwork and organizing effectively differ for coached
and laissez-faire training programs?
Do the differences in the means of communication, teamwork and organizing effectively
between the two training programs vary as a function of age group?
Data for this study were pulled from Román-Maqueira’s sample of 317 Latin American
youths. One hundred and twenty responses were from Mexican entrepreneurs. This study used
92 of the 120 responses, after removing 24 responses with missing data, two respondents
younger than 18, and two respondents older than 35.
All participants completed an online survey after participating in at least one year of
entrepreneurial activity. Content validity was done on the survey responses by a panel of five
jurors of bilingual speakers. Bilingual speakers were chosen because the survey was
administered in Spanish and later translated to English. A factor analysis was also conducted on
the items and resulted in the elimination of some survey items. The remaining items had a factor
loading of .494 or higher. Alpha coefficients for the survey items showed high reliability (range
84.3% - 92.5%).
Employability skills, the focus of this research, were measured by 3 dimensions (22
items) on the survey: communication (5 items), teamwork (6 items) and organizing effectively
(11 items). The items were rated on a 10-point scale where 1 tells strongly disagree (SD) with the
statement and a 10 means strongly agree with the statement (Román-Maqueira, 2011). To see the
entire survey, Román-Maqueira (2011), page 193.
A 2 X 2 ANOVA compared the mean ratings of the dimensions of communication,
teamwork and organizing effectively, within two age groups of youth entrepreneurs (emerging
adults and young adults) and two training methods (coached and laissez-faire). This is a factorial
Page 130
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Source
Corrected Model
SS
146.30
a
Df
3
MS
48.77
F
3.19
p
.03
Intercept 87302.86 1 87302.86 5707.72 .00
Age 98.86 1 98.86 6.46 .01
Program 9.66 1 9.66 .63 .43
Age*Program 94.77 1 94.77 6.20 .01
Error 1208.35 79 15.30
Total 104364.00 83
Corrected Total 1354.65 82
design with two independents variables (age group and training method). The dependent
variables would be communication, teamwork and organizing effectively.
RESULTS
A 2 X 2 ANOVA evaluated the effects of age group and type of training program on
communication skills. The means and standard deviations for communication skills as a function
of the two factors are presented in Table 1. The ANOVA (Table 2) showed significant
interaction between emerging adults and young adults and type of training program, F(1, 79) =
6.20, p = .01, partial ?
2
= .07. There was no significant difference for the type of training
program, F(1, 79) = 0.63, p = .43, partial ?
2
= .01, but significant main effects for emerging
adults and young adults, F(1, 79) = 6.46, p = .01, partial ?
2
= .08. The main effect for the age
group showed that young adults tended to have higher communication skills than emerging
adults.
Table 1
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR COMMUNICATION SKILLS
Age group Training Program M SD
18-25 Coached 32.33 3.65
Laissez-Faire 35.38 4.64
26-35 Coached 37.00 3.88
Laissez-Faire 35.43 3.12
Total Coached 34.85 4.40
Laissez-Faire 35.40 3.93
Table 2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR COMMUNICATION SKILLS
2
.11
.99
.08
.01
.07
a. R Squared = .108 (Adjusted R Squared = .074)
A 2 X 2 ANOVA evaluated the effects of age group and type of training program on
teamwork skills. The means and standard deviations for teamwork skills as a function of the two
factors are presented in Table 3. The ANOVA (Table 4) showed significant interaction between
emerging adults and young adults and type of training program, F(1, 78) = 4.88, p = .03, partial
?
2
= .06. There was no significant difference for the type of training program, F(1, 78) = 0.10, p
= .75, partial ?
2
= .00, and no significant main effects for emerging adults and young adults, F(1,
78) = 1.13, p = .29, partial ?
2
= .01. The main effect for the age group showed that young adults
tended to have similar teamwork skills as emerging adults.
Page 131
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 3
Source
Corrected Model
SS
143.31
a
Df
3
MS
47.77
F
1.65
p
.18
Intercept 201789.73 1 201789.73 6958.05 .00
Age 32.92 1 32.92 1.13 .29
Program 3.02 1 3.02 .10 .75
Age*Program 141.67 1 141.67 4.88 .03
Error 2262.07 78 29.00
Total 244225.00 82
Corrected Total 2405.38 81
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR TEAMWORK SKILLS
Age group Training Program M SD
18-25 Coached 51.82 4.89
Laissez-Faire 55.11 5.08
26-35 Coached 56.07 4.36
Laissez-Faire 53.62 6.21
Total Coached 54.20 4.99
Laissez-Faire 54.35 5.68
Table 4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TEAMWORK SKILLS
2
.06
.99
.01
.00
.06
a. R Squared = .060 (Adjusted R Squared = .023)
A 2 X 2 ANOVA evaluated the effects of age group and type of training program on
organizing effectively. The means and standard deviations for organizing effectively as a
function of the two factors are presented in Table 5. The ANOVA (Table 6) showed no
significant interaction between emerging adults and young adults and type of training program,
F(1, 72) = 1.88, p = .17, partial ?
2
= .02. There was no significant difference for type of training
program, F(1, 72) = 0.00, p = .96, partial ?
2
= .00, but significant main effects for emerging
adults and young adults, F(1, 72) = 5.28, p = .02, partial ?
2
= .07. The main effect for the age
group showed that young adults tended to have higher organizing effectively skills than
emerging adults. Please note that large standard deviation on Table 5 of the Laissez-Faire 18-25
group, may lead to Error type II. However, p=.96 showed no significance among the program.
Table 5
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ORGANIZING EFFECTIVELY
Age group Training Program M SD
18-25 Coached 94.20 7.10
Laissez-Faire 97.31 11.49
26-35 Coached 102.86 8.76
Laissez-Faire 99.50 8.26
Total Coached 99.25 9.06
Laissez-Faire 98.40 9.97
Page 132
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Table 6
Source
Corrected Model
SS
511.42
a
Df
3
MS
170.47
F
1.90
p
.14
Intercept 624636.52 1 624636.52 6964.75 .00
Age 473.97 1 473.97 5.28 .02
Program .25 1 .25 .00 .96
Age*Program 168.29 1 168.29 1.88 .17
Error 6457.35 72 89.68
Total 746903.00 76
Corrected Total 6968.78 75
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ORGANIZING EFFECTIVELY SKILLS
2
.07
.99
.07
.00
.02
a. R Squared = .073 (Adjusted R Squared = .035)
SCHOLARLY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Organizations and educational institutions should be mindful of the program design and
targeted age group when investing in entrepreneurial training. Specifically, it is imperative that
they consider alternate methods of preparing entrepreneurs younger than 25 years old. The
current trend according to Schawbel (2014), is that high school students (61%) and college
students (43%) would rather be an entrepreneur instead of an employee when they graduate
college. Organizations should appropriately train youths for their desired careers and professions
goals.
After evaluating the results of the study, the recommendation for future research should
be to repeat the study with a larger sample size for each group under observation. Another
recommendation is to have an external rater evaluate the entrepreneurs’ employability skills in
addition to their self-evaluation. This would result in a more rounded appraisal of the impact of
training and would capture any personal biases and blind spots of the trainee.
For Mexico, there is a need to research different models focused in specific areas as
stated by the bibliometric analysis conducted by Gajón-Gómez et al. (2014). It is important to
understand how to improve the government-universities-companies formula to promote the
development of new entrepreneurs that create new job positions, and become a strategic impulse
for the Mexican micro and macro economy. There may not have been a need in the past,
however now that the interest in entrepreneurship is rising, it is imperative for us to have
researched based policies and practices to support this change.
CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the results of the present study, the findings support that some
employability skills are teachable to entrepreneurs as stated in studies presented in the theoretical
framework (Bauer, 2011; Wu & Jung, 2008). Communication skill is one of the most influential
employability skills for employers (Maxwell et al., 2009 and Parvu et al., 2014). The success of
an employability skills program can be determined by the effectiveness of the program in
improving communication skills. The finding for the present study illustrate that, of the three
dimensions of employability skills evaluated, communication skills had the greatest probability
for improving. Communication skills increased with age alone and with the interaction of age
and type of training.
Teamwork is also an important employability skill expected by employers (Parvu et al.
2014). In the study, this skill did not improve with the age or participation in the type of training
Page 133
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
program, instead teamwork skills increased only with the interaction of age and type of the
training.
The results gained with this study also provide new information about the role of age in
training employability skills. Young adults (ages 26-35) reported higher levels of communication
and organizing effectively skills regardless of participation in the coached or laissez-faire
training program. An additional finding related to age is that young adults (age 26-35) in the
coached entrepreneurial program reported a more positive increase in employability skills
compared with the young adults in the laissez faire program and compared to emerging adults
(age 18-25) from both training programs.
Improving employability skills is beneficial to entrepreneurship activities in Mexico.
Sixty six percent of companies survive only the first two years (Headd, 2003 as cited in Morales-
Díaz, 2012). A high rate of youths in Mexico participate in entrepreneurship activities (OECD,
2013). Therefore, it is important to develop employability skills to help the sustainability of
Mexican youth companies.
A surprising finding was that there was no significant difference between the two types
of training programs. The entrepreneurs in the coached program reported similar increase on
employability skills as those in the laissez-faire program. Training programs are essential to an
entrepreneur’s success; however, not all programs are successful. Other factors such as
personality and social environment, in addition to the training program yield a higher chance of
success (Uribe et al., 2013). One-third of the women that participated in a study about
entrepreneurs, felt less or no effectiveness with the training program they took (Nagesh &
Murthy, 2008).
REFERENCES
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development From the Late Teens Through the Twenties.
American Psychologist, 469-480.
Bauer, K. (2011). Training Women for Success: an Evaluation of Entrepreneurship Training Programs in Vermont,
USA. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1-24.
Baughn, C. C., & Neupert, K. E. (2003). Culture and National Conditions Facilitating Entrepreneurial Start -ups.
Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 313-330.
Brand Solutions Asia Pacific. (2008). The Golden Age of Youth. Retrieved from Viacom:http://www.viacomasia.com/golderageofyouth08.html
do Paço, A. F., Ferreira, J. M., Raposo, M., Rodrigues, R. G., & Dinis, A. (2011). Behaviours and Entrepreneural
Intention: Empirical Findings About Secondary Students. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 20-
38.
Elmuti, D., Khoury, G., & Omran, O. (2012). Does Entrepreneurship Education Have A Role In Developing
Entrepreneurial Skills And Ventures' Effectiveness? Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 83-98.
Gajón-Gómez, E., Reyna-García, G. M., Armenteros-Acosta, M. d., & Mijares-Villarreal, M. (2014). Innovando La
Educación En México: Factores Internos Que Impactan Al Emprendimiento Universitario. Global
Conference on Business and Finance (pp. 687-693). San José, Costa Rica: The Institute for Business and
Finance Research.
Kumar, R., & Kelly, L. (2005). Self-Efficacy, Social and Cultural Issues in Designing Online Technology Skills
Transfer Programs: A Mexican Context. Journal of Information Science and Technology, 72-92.
Llisterri, J. J., Kantis, H., Angelelli, P., & Tejerina, L. (2006). Is Youth Entrepreneurship a Necessity or an
Opportunity? Inter-American Development Bank, 1-18.
Page 134
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Mason, G., Williams, G., & Cranmer, S. (2009). Employability Skills Initiatives in Higher Education: What Effects
Do They Have on Graduate Labour Market Outcomes? Education Economics, 1-30.
Maxwell, G., Scott, B., Macfarlane, D., & Williamson, E. (2009). Employers as Stakeholders in Postgraduate
Employability Skills Development. Journal of Management Education, 1-11.
Montiel-Méndez, O. J., Márquez-Miramontes, B. L., Arámbula-Monreal, Z., & Ordoñez-Molinar, L. (2012).
Intención De Emprendimiento En Estudiantes: El Caso De Una Universidad Pública En Ciudad Juárez,
México. Global Conference on Business and Finance (pp. 1231-1243). Honolulu: The Institute for
Business and Finance Research.
Morales-Díaz, R. R. (2012). Demografía de Negocios en México. Estudios Demográficos y Urbanos, p. 201'225.
Moreland, N. (2006). Entrepreneurship and Higher Education: An Employability Perspective. Higher Education
Academy.
Moreno-Zacarías, H. M., & Espíritu-Olmos, R. (2010, July-December). Análisis De Las Características del
Emprendimiento y Liderazgo En Los Países De Asia y Latinoamérica. Portes: Revista Mexicana de
Estudios Sobre la Cuenca del Pacífico, pp. 101-122.
Nagesh, P., & Murthy, M. N. (2008). The Effectiveness of Women Entrepreneurship Training Program: A Case
Study. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 23-40.
OECD. (2013, July). Self-Employment Among the Youth and Seniors. Retrieved from OECD iLibrary:http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/entrepreneur_aag-2013-21-en
Ortega-Martínez, R. M., Cano-López de Nava, C. B., Salcido-Martínez, C. N., Villarreal-Solís, M. D., & Villarreal-
Solís, F. (2014). El Emprendimiento Desde Una Institución De Educación Superior en México. Global
Conference on Business and Finance (pp. 1523-1537). San José, Costa Rica: The Institute for Business and
Finance Research.
Parvu, I., Ipate, D. M., & Mitran, P. C. (2014). Identification of Employability Skills - Starting Point for the
Curriculum Design Process. Addleton Academic Publishers, 237-246.
Raposo, M., & do Paço, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Relationship Between Education and
Entrepreneurial Activity. Psicothema, 453-457.
Román-Maqueira, J. (2011). Latin American Youth Entrepreneurs: Differences Between Coached And Laissez-Faire
Entrepreneurial Experiences In Their Employabiity Skills And Their Entrepreneurial Innovative Attitude.
Oakdale, NY: UMI Dissertation Publishing.
Sahni, L. (2011). The Impact of Soft Skill Training Induction Programme on New Entrants. BVIMR Management
Edge, 40-47.
Schawbel, D. (2014, April 22). Mellenial Branding. Retrieved from Mellenial Branding:http://millennialbranding/2014/02/high-school-careers-study/
Sherwood, A. L., Robinson, D. F., & Butts, S. B. (2011). Four Stages to More Successful Knowledge Transfer
Between Universities and Industry Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial Executive, 9-23.
Uribe, J., De Pablo, J., & Bonilla, J. J. (2013). Business and Local Development: Training as a Basic Factor to
Guide the Entrepreneur. Intangible Capital, 644-677.
Wu, S., & Jung, Y. J. (2008). Is Non-Traditional Entrepreneurship Training Helpful to Nascent Entrepreneurs? Yes
and No. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 43-51.
Page 135
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAINERS – THE
COMPETENCE MIX IN ACTION-ORIENTED
ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Øystein Rennemo, Nord-Trøndelag University College
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates contextual factors in entrepreneurship training and education
as well as the connection to discussions in recent research. It concentrates on the relation
between entrepreneurship education and the role of the trainers. These topics are investigated
in the framework of an Action Research program in order to evaluate the effects of action- or
activity-oriented programs in entrepreneurship training and education. The empirical
background of the paper is a 2.5 year research and development program (Women & Growth)
that involved 24 growth-oriented women entrepreneurs and involved 10 trainers/researchers
from four research institutions in central regions of Sweden and Norway. The findings indicate
1) that action-oriented programs seem to be suitable as a program design to develop necessary
competencies among entrepreneurs and help them expand their business. Another finding is
the 2) necessity of involving a variety of competencies among the trainers/researchers.
Additionally, 3) it was found to be necessary to include the learning network among the
entrepreneurs as an important part of the knowledge reservoir needed for the entrepreneurs to
draw on when assisting their businesses to grow. Finally, 4) the paper shows how regional
collaboration among different research institutions enables the group of trainers/researchers
to benefit from the strengths and competencies found only in some of the locations.
INTRODUCTION
Despite the prioritization of entrepreneurship training and education in the last two
decades and the explosion of entrepreneurship programs in business schools (Page West III,
Gatewood & Shaver 2009), there is still little knowledge about the learning process that equips
entrepreneurs with best possible mind-sets and skills (Gstraunthaler & Hendry 2011).
Entrepreneurship is about heterogeneity which needs to be taken into account in entrepreneurial
education and training. As Fayolle (2010) argues, we can learn more from the differences than
the similarities and there is no single magic factor or simple recipe in entrepreneurship
education, only factors that are more or less suitable in relation to contextual matters such as
personal, interpersonal, networking, company, institutional and cultural factors. In addition, we
should add contextual factors about the training and educational settings as well. Searching for
simple solutions when designing entrepreneurship education is recognized to have a limited
effect and will seldom develop the necessary competencies such as creativity, opportunity
recognition and problem-solving ability (Lautenschläger & Haase 2011).
A development trend in entrepreneurship education seems to be the move away from
academic pedagogical methods towards activity and action learning oriented programs. Several
contributors have argued that entrepreneurship is best learned by the actions of the entrepreneur
himself/herself in an atmosphere of trust that allows experimentation and reflection both in and
on action (Mc Mullan & Lung 1987, Hills 1988, Åsvoll & Jacobsen 2012). The paper is based
on research in line with these recommendations since the knowledge generated comes from an
entrepreneurship development project, already in the project description Women and Growth
had selected Action Research (AR) as an overall methodological orientation.
Page 136
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
This paper will concentrate on the relationship between entrepreneurship education and
the role of the trainers and it will examine which competencies are preferable when working
with entrepreneurship education and development in an action- activity-oriented
entrepreneurship development program, such as Action Research programs or Action Learning
programs. The paper accepts a wide-ranging definition of the educator role, arguing that the
whole learning community is included in the definition. Thus, the research question that will
be pursued are: Which competencies are preferable in development programs when supporting
women entrepreneurs who want their businesses to grow.
The empirical background of the paper is a 2.5 year research and development program
(Kvinner & Vekst, Women & Growth) that involved 24 growth-oriented women entrepreneurs
in central regions of Sweden and Norway. It was funded by INTERREG which is an EU
program. The development program ended in spring 2013 and was evaluated as a success by
participants, research institutions and by the funder (Von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013). Even
though the data collected for this study come from a program for women entrepreneurs, the
findings are not discussed with reference to a gender aspect. On the contrary, the assumption is
that state-of-the-art entrepreneurship education is considered gender independent. Female
entrepreneurs are very much like male entrepreneurs and it is more meaningful to speak about
within-sex differences than between-sex differences. (Ahl 2002, Nelson & Duffy 2010).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Women & Growth was a research and development program that committed the 24
women entrepreneurs who participated to develop their businesses within the framework of an
Action Research design. The goals of the whole project were partly to develop and allow
ongoing businesses to grow and partly do research and develop new knowledge about women
entrepreneurship (von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013). The term Action Research contains a
variety of traditions and design principles (Reason & Bradbury 2008, Brydon-Miller,
Greenwood & Maguire 2003, Dick 2006). The term is also close to action-oriented concepts,
such as Action Learning (Revans 1977), Action Science (Argyris, Putnam & Smith 1985), Co-
operative Inquiry (Heron 1996), Action Inquiry (Torbert 2004) and Action Based Development
(Rennemo 2006). Together these traditions are regarded to have considerable impact on practice
oriented research and development work (Minzberg 2004). What they have in common and
thus uniting these different traditions is placing emphasis on and trying to balance the following
three elements: action (in order to change a situation to something better), participation (in a
way that involves people that are affected by the situation), and research (in order to generate
new knowledge that is useful for others outside the participating group (Greenwood & Levin
2007). Even though Action Research was chosen as a methodological orientation in Women &
Growth, the orientation of the program was quite flexible and took advantage of different
action-oriented traditions (von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013).
The reason for choosing an AR-oriented approach in the Women & Growth
entrepreneurship development program was assumptions in the project management ahead of
start-up that such an approach would be the best way to promote growth among the businesses
of the entrepreneurs. These assumptions are anchored in entrepreneurship education programs
arguing that entrepreneurship can be learned and facilitated but not taught as well as in general
action research oriented literature (Argyris et al. 1985, Lave & Wenger 1990, Daly 2001, Birch
2004, Pittaway & Cope 2007).
It is argued that entrepreneurship has a holistic nature (Page West III, Gatewood &
Shaver 2009), meaning that there are a wide variety of competencies needed for the
entrepreneur to handle all upcoming challenges. In action-oriented literature we find this need
Page 137
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
met by a holistic recommendation (Gummesson 2000) and operationally we find the needs met
since the content (the task for improvement), the process (the way of improvement) and the
premises (fundamental assumptions behind thinking and action) are challenged (Coghlan &
Brannick 2010). Besides this there is a need for numerous reflections about the individual, the
team and the organizational levels (Ibid.). In such an approach, flexibility and adaption to the
situation are needed depending on the variable and quite unpredictable needs from the
entrepreneurs involved. This is also helpful in order to meet another demand in entrepreneurship
education: It is argued that there are two recent trends, one to narrow the scope and deliver
specialized educational demands, the other is to widen the scope and present the entrepreneur
with a learning environment that challenges mainstream thinking, presenting new and unusual
perspectives that are holistically oriented (Kuckertz 2013). One advantage of an action-oriented
design is the possibility, or more correctly the necessity, to combine both narrowing and
widening, due to the holistic orientation.
According to central principles from the action-oriented tradition, the questions and
tasks that are aimed toward improvement are participant driven (Greenwood & Levin 2007), in
this case by the entrepreneurs themselves. This has relevance to an important matter in
entrepreneurship training and education, namely who makes decision about teaching priorities.
In classroom and business school education, the topics are predetermined before the learning
processes starts and are usually described in curriculums (Nelson & Duffy 2010). In the action-
oriented tradition, the topics are participant driven.
In the paper, the concept “knowledge reservoirs” is used to describe the total knowledge
network that was available for the women entrepreneurs in the development program. The
concept, rooted in Resource Based Theory (RBT) is based on how managers build and acquire
knowledge (McGrath and Argote 2000, Widding 2005) by drawing on the available reservoir
of knowledge in order to exploit opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman 2000, Sarasvathy
2008). The “knowing” is a dynamic process by which the acquired knowledge is constantly
being built, tested, and reconstructed (Sveiby 1997, Choo 1998). Quite early in the Women &
Growth program, it became clear that sharing of knowledge and experience among the
entrepreneurs was an important part of the knowledge reservoir. Moreover, according to
Nonaka (1994), knowledge consists of both tacit and explicit elements. Given that
entrepreneurial firms are primarily based on entrepreneurs’ knowledge, firms’ knowledge
reservoirs largely consist of personal tacit knowledge.
METHOD
The paper is based on an AR design, where 10 researchers/trainers/coaches from four
research institutions in the central Scandinavian region were interacting with 24 Swedish and
Norwegian women entrepreneurs in a 2.5 year development program. The 24 women
entrepreneurs had all committed themselves to growth, although the term growth itself was not
predefined. They owned their own companies (more than 50%), had their company as their
main income source and the company had existed for more than 3 years. Their businesses were
related to three business sectors: health/nursing/welfare work, tourism/creative work and
business service/immaterial work (Von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013). Apart from this the group
was rather heterogeneous with regard to characteristics like geography, age, business
experience and education. The heterogeneity was intended when recruiting the women to the
program and was presented as advantageous for the sharing of experience and for the learning
community. When the women met at the first workshop in January 2011, they were organized
in four network groups and the principles of heterogeneity followed the organization of these
groups as well. The effects and implications of this will be discussed later in the paper.
Page 138
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The design of the program is also an answer to the claim that a lack of longitudinal
studies in the field of entrepreneurship research is a major methodological drawback regarding
accumulation of theory (Sexton 1997, Chandler and Lyon 2001, Davidsson et al. 2001). Most
research in entrepreneurship education is based upon university student programs and differs
from the context in this paper. Knowledge developed from action-oriented research holds a
more marginalized position which underlines the importance of this type of study. As Page
West III, Gatewood & Shaver (2009) and Fayolle (2010) emphasize it is important to study less
focused research areas and topics. Since entrepreneurial thinking and skills to a large extent are
unfolding outside academia, it is important to broaden entrepreneurship training and education
beyond the university and business school environments.
We have underlined the holistic nature of action-oriented training programs. In Women
and Growth, this theoretical driven position created expectations about the learning situation.
We expected that this would help the 24 entrepreneurs to be able to work with different
challenges depending on their actual situation in the growth process. It was expected sometimes
that there was a need to focus on specific business tasks while in other situations their challenges
were expected to be on a more personal level. Sometimes the expectations were needs to be
challenged creatively to be able to learn something “new”, while at other times their anticipated
focus was on making and following up plans and activities. Silberzahn & Silberzahn (2010)
make some proposals about entrepreneur education among them the suggestion that
entrepreneurs will benefit from education in a wide range of subjects. The learning network that
was available for the entrepreneurs in the development program consisted of people with a
variety of competencies. The trainers, the project staff, from the four research institutions
represented different academic disciplines and had special competencies in different fields of
entrepreneurial activity. Table 1 indicates various competencies that were represented by the
ten people from the research institutions. The advantage of the competence mix indicated in the
table was expected ahead of the program and therefore a factor that influenced the composition
of the researchers/trainers being involved in the program. According to the holistic nature of
this type of programs, it was expected that it would be necessary to have people with expert
competence on different entrepreneurship topics, people that also had research experience and
competence on these topics. Besides, it was expected that it would be valuable to have various
forms of process consultancy competencies. These are the two main competence categories in
the table. In the right-hand column different fields of expertise within each main category are
mentioned. We had at least, two people with significant competence in each field of expertise.
Table 1
COMPETENCIES IN THE PROJECT STAFF
Main competence categories Fields of expertise
Research competencies - Entrepreneurship and growth. Regional development
- Women entrepreneurship.
- Financing and social capital
- Commercialization and marketing
- Perspectives of network – networking.
- Innovation and creativity
Leadership and management theory
- Knowledge management. Organizational learning.
Process consultancy
competencies
- Action Research/Action Learning-methodology.
- Individual and team coaching (certificated or well documented
experiences).
- Leadership/personal tests (certificated).
- Business development consultancy (also women businesses).
- Leadership development consultancy
- Train the trainer’s consultancy.
Page 139
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Four of the researchers/trainers (two from each country) formed the project leadership
team, also representing the link to the financer (INTERREG), one of these was the daily
manager of the development program. Additionally one member was recruited to have special
responsibility for learning processes in the development program as well as ongoing learning
and training among the whole team of researchers/trainers. Except this person, all of them were
allocated as resources to the network groups, two from each country. The effect of the
competence mix among the researchers/trainers will be discussed later on.
The action-oriented tradition emphasizes principles like working with real-life issues,
knowledge sharing and the necessity to develop a spirit of openness, trust and democracy
(Gummesson 2000). These principles were highlighted in Women & Growth as well. In the
first workshop extra time and focus was placed on discussing who the researchers in the
program were. A theoretical driven position from AR literature gives this label to all
participants both project staff and entrepreneurs, since all have responsibility for production of
data, knowledge sharing and knowledge building (Greenwood & Levin 2007, Coghlan &
Brannick 2010). When the expression “we are all researchers” was introduced by the project
staff as a collective oriented concepts, some confusion arose, but quite fast the concept was
embraced by the entrepreneurs and gave energy to the process. This will be discussed below.
An interesting episode happened though during the evening dinner on the same day. Some of
the entrepreneurs suggested the necessity to change the titles of the project staff. Up to this time
the name researcher and coach had been used as well. Now, they suggested the use of the name
PROST (PROject STaff, the same abbreviation in Norwegian/Swedish). This was accepted by
the whole group and consequently used later on until the program ended.
Another topic that was discussed at the same (first) workshop was the clarifications of
different goals pursued in the program. In this discussion it became obvious that the foregoing
role clarification was helpful. After some plenary reflections one member from the PROST
group summarized the discussion by depicting a drawing that is presented below (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Different goals in the Women & Growth program
The figure was helpful as it shows how different types of goals could be established and
pursued through the program as long as they were in accordance with fundamental and accepted
AR thinking, as presented above. There was full openness in the whole group about the different
goals, besides the obligations to help each other reach them. The figure presents the three
different types of goals: First of all, individual growth oriented goals set by the 24
entrepreneurs. Second, we had research goals pursued by the PROST group (the group of
“professional” researchers) and finally, we established common goals including both
entrepreneurs and PROST. The most important of these was the decision to write an anthology
Page 140
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
based upon the knowledge about entrepreneurial growth developed in the program. The
anthology was published in 2013 (Von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013), the chapters were written
by the PROST group with invaluable contributions and specific data production from all the
entrepreneurs. This paper is an example of the second type of goals, members from the PROST
group pursuing their specific research interests.
Not only the setting of the goals but also the design and agenda of different workshops
and meeting were issues for participant involvement. The topics to be highlighted or trained in
were driven by the entrepreneurs’ interests. These topics were discussed as an ongoing activity
in collaboration between the entrepreneurs and the PROST group. But this was not an obvious
position for all members of the learning community. In fact, a decisive matter occurred in the
first of six workshops. After AR design and learning principles had been discussed, the
entrepreneurs were presented with a more or less fixed plan for the coming days. Some of the
entrepreneurs opposed this, and it was thus necessary to redesign the plan based on the actual
needs and information from the entrepreneurs. This caused some confusion, but became an
important learning experience for rest of the program.
Except for the first workshop, the others were planned in cooperation between PROST
and entrepreneurs. The table below illustrates central activities in the development program
from beginning to end.
Table 2
PROJECT ACTIVITIES (TRANSLATED AND COMPILED FROM VON FRIEDRICHS &
RENNEMO 2013)
Workshop (WS) Activities
Main subject in each workshop in bold font
WS 1. (3 days)
January 2011
Growth and Growth ambitions. Who we are? Program design, resources and
challenges. Network groups and network (IT) communication. Tools for reflection.
Reflections and knowledge sharing. Planning next WS. Working with business plans.
WS 2. (2.5 days)
May 2011
Networking, business network, relations. What has happened between WS 1 and 2?
Presentations and knowledge sharing. Network mapping. Reflections. Tools for
business and personal development. Business plans. Common research goal (anthology)
WS 3. (2.5 days)
November 2011
Marketing and internationalization/globalization. Status presentations (small and
large groups), coaching activities/helping each other, reflections and knowledge
sharing, tools for personal and business development, planning, reflection activities.
WS 4. ( 1 day)
February 2012
Extra WS. Not initially planned. Videoconference. 1 group in each country. Experience
and knowledge sharing. More on marketing (p/m-matrix). Coaching each other.
Working with business plans. Planning next workshop.
WS 5 (2.5 days)
May 2012
Financing, business models, boots-trapping. Status growth (presentations, coaching).
Status anthology. Tools for personal and business development (Myer Briggs).
Reflections. Working with business plans. Planning next workshop.
WS 6 (2.5 days)
January 2013
Business Conference in Åre (Sweden). Part of WS included a business conference
based upon the development project including presentations from entrepreneurs and
PROST + external speakers. 120 participants.
After the conference: Anthology presentations and discussions with entrepreneurs.
Reflections and evaluations.
Post WS
March 2013
Anthology sent to all entrepreneurs (co-authors) for checking data and receiving
permissions on the way data and entrepreneurs are presented.
Project report INTERREG
Post WS
June 2013
Anthology publishing activities. Publishing date 2013-06-01.
Release party mid-June, some entrepreneurs participated
Page 141
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The table only includes some of the most important activities. We must pay attention to
all the follow-up activities in the period between the different meetings and workshops and
even meetings and arrangement in network groups and information work and chatting on
information platform (Web-CT and Fronter) and on Facebook.
At this point we also have to clarify that the total length of the whole project was about
3.5 years and included almost a year in the preparation phase and almost a half year with closing
activities, among them reporting back to the funders. In the preparation phase the project staff
was recruited from the four research institutions and they met and prepared and planned for the
development program. One important part of the planning was the construction of and sending
a questionnaire to 5500 women entrepreneurs in mid-Sweden and mid-Norway. The response
rate was 20% in Norway and 24 % in Sweden. The following data processing gave valuable
data about the target group (women entrepreneurs) and was used as to provide a knowledge
background in the development program. Besides, the data have been valuable in research
activities for the PROST group after the program ended.
A second questionnaire, based on information from the first one, was later on sent to a
group of 206 women entrepreneurs having expressed willingness to take part in a development
program. Out of this group, the final group of 24 participants was selected. This questionnaire
provided information and knowledge that partly was fed back to the participants and partly was
used as data later on.
Other and more qualitative oriented data giving empirical documentation to this paper
are all produced in, or as a result of, activities in the Women and Growth program. The
reflections continuously given by both entrepreneurs and researchers (PROST group) during
the whole program are important. Some of these are open reflections, and therefore based upon
authors’ logs, but most of the reflections come from answers given to prepared questions at the
end of every workshop. Several of these questions were asked repeatedly through the whole
program, and some of them were about contributions from PROST members. From the
entrepreneurs, feedback to the program, opinions about help given from both PROST and
entrepreneurship colleagues and responses to the network of learning that was established are
of course important data, the same can be said for the produced documents, such as project
description, workshop agendas, presentations and reports. Additionally some secondary data
have been used; the most important being the anthology (Von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013)
that was produced by the PROST group in collaboration with the entrepreneurs. Here we find
valuable information about the program, program responses from the entrepreneurs and
documentation of the entrepreneurship knowledge developed through the program.
EMPIRICAL DISCUSSION
The ambition of this paper, as the title indicates, is to investigate the competencies and
the mix of the competencies that was useful in an action-oriented research and development
program for women entrepreneurs, a program evaluated as successful from all researchers and
entrepreneurs involved and even by the funder, INTERREG. In this section the findings are
related to empirical evidence and we will concentrate upon four main issues. The first
discussion is related to the design of the program, the effects of an action- or activity-oriented
arrangement for entrepreneurship training and education. The second discussion is related to
the group of professional researchers/trainers that was involved in the program. The third
discussion expands the concept of ‘trainer’ and discusses the effect of the whole learning
community that was involved. When describing this total learning community, we draw upon
the concept ‘knowledge reservoir’. Since the Women & Growth program not only was a
development program, but also a research program, we will finally investigate the effect the
Page 142
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
competence mix among trainers/researchers had upon the ability to deliver research results
within the field of entrepreneurship.
Action-oriented design
The development program was part of an AR project, but as mentioned, when in the
project the action label was not the most important issue and as presented in the theoretical and
methodological part we find traces of various action-oriented traditions. Hynes, O’Dwyer &
Birdthistle (2009) reflect upon differences between didactic and enterprising learning models
and recommend a transfer to the last in entrepreneurship education. Didactic models are
characterized by teaching, passive listening, learning from texts and experts, feedback from
only one key person, the environment is structured and timetabled and copying from others is
discouraged. The enterprising learning model is characterized by learning from each other,
learning by doing, learning by exchange of experience and discovery (under guidance),
feedback from many, environmental flexibility, some pressure to achieve goals, best practice
and “stealing” from others, mistakes are to be learned from and problem-based learning (Ibid.).
Together with characteristics mentioned earlier about the action-oriented approach, the
description of enterprising learning models suit the approach in Women & Growth very well.
This approach was really appreciated by the entrepreneurs, it created a lot of energy,
exemplified by some of the quoted reflections below.
-I found it interesting to hear that we all are co-researchers. – We are going to influence the process
ourselves. – This network gives so much energy. – I want to investigate in order to improve my business.
– It feels good to be part of a university environment once more. – I was surprised that communication
with this group, with people in “the same boat” was so energizing. This is something extraordinary
This orientation towards an enterprising learning model and transfer from the didactic
pedagogical situation that most of the PROST were influenced from at the beginning, was not
uncomplicated. Sometimes, we as staff were “arrested” by the entrepreneurs of having a theory
in use that was different from what we exposed.
-Sometimes, I think the cultural differences between researchers and entrepreneurs have clashed. Then
the relation between us felt more like a teacher- student relation.
Overall though, these experiences make it clear that the action and enterprising oriented
design was energizing and motivated the participating entrepreneurs. It also seems evident that
the women entrepreneurs in this program, appreciated the opportunity to take part in general
knowledge production and entrepreneurship research, i.e. the research goals they had a common
responsibility to pursue together with the PROST group (the “professional” researchers, as
shown in Figure 1. The possibility to be part of an anthology production, as co-researchers, is
frequently mentioned in their reflections as a motivating factor.
An action-oriented program is driven by participant needs and ought to be situationally
adaptive. That means the education has to be able to handle both substantial questions about
business and activity planning as well as personal, relational or emotional challenges. Several
of the entrepreneurs emphasized this quality in the Women & Growth development program.
-If I put words to my feelings, the program feels like an internal education, a rather exclusive and different
one, a possibility to develop personally as well as my business. – I work better and more structured. I feel
that I manage and I have become more open-minded and open as a person. – First time we met we created
a name for our 6 person group, “Pearls on a thread”, the pearls were the six of us. The meaning of the
pearls has changed. It is now about delight, sincerity, tools cooperation and meetings. I have an overall
understanding of what I do and what I want to do. – Before I held my presentation (last workshop)
yesterday I needed to think about the output of this program: friends, knowledge and new business. I’ve
Page 143
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
learned a lot about myself, about strengths and weaknesses. I’ve got knowledge about other business
sectors, knowledge about research and the research sector and how different logics influence our
different ways of thinking.
There has been little research in entrepreneurship education about the emotional aspects
of teaching and learning (Arpiainen, Lackeus, Täks & Tynjälä 2013). According to Kyrö (2008)
this is an area where research is needed. In Women & Growth, considerable effort was placed
on creating trust so that it became possible to express emotions as a natural part of
entrepreneurial experience. One way to encourage this was the establishment of confidentiality
contracts among the participants. In addition, a lot of effort was put into the understanding of
Argyris (1990) concepts of Model I vs. Model II behavior, where Model II-behavior is seen as
a necessity to develop in action-oriented programs (Rennemo 2006). Several times during the
program, entrepreneurs expressed strong emotions, both joy and despair, often expressed in
connection with storytelling about progress or setbacks in their business development, but also
in relation to events in their private life.
The competencies and the mix of competencies among the trainers
Silberzahn & Silberzahn (2010) make some proposals about entrepreneur education
among them the suggestion that entrepreneurs will benefit from education in a wide range of
subjects. Even though their reference is a didactic learning situation (Hynes, O’Dwyer &
Birdthistle, 2009) their recommendations are relevant for this discussion. In Women &Growth
we find a lot of teaching activities where members of the PROST group, as experts, gave lessons
upon topics demanded by the entrepreneurs. These topics are highlighted in Table 2 and the
available competencies among the PROST group are presented in Table 1. The possibilities of
offering complementary competencies and the competence mix among the group of people
(PROST) from the four different research institutions, was definitely a factor that was tried to
achieve in the composition of the group in the planning phase of the program. During and after
the program this is also a factor the group itself evaluated as criteria of success.
-There is so much knowledge and competence in this group, - an overwhelming experience, WOW!. - I
feel we have managed utilizing the complementary strengths in our group in a better way than I maybe
thought before the program started.
Even the entrepreneurs were commenting on the same in their program evaluations.
Here we have concentrated some reflections after workshop 5, just to exemplify the material.
We find very much the same comments after other workshops. First some reflections in relation
to the topics highlighted:
-The lecture that x held about competition forces was thought-provoking. -It was very useful to learn more
about financing and business models.-The lectures you gave yesterday were rather valuable for me. -I
admit that my knowledge about business models and bootstrapping was limited. I now can see that there
are some important aspects here I need to take into consideration in relation to my business plan.
Then some reflections in relation to the process and process material that was taught by
PROST:
- I take the 20 million you gave me (fictive imagination exercise) with me as an experience not to be stuck
in my own mental limitations.-The exercise we did yesterday made a great impression. I realized that I
need to look around more to see what’s going on. What and how do others do? And what can I learn from
them?. -Through the exercise I once again realized the importance of this network and how much energy
I get from it. I’m impressed by the willingness to share experience and advice. I’m proud to be part of
this team. Very competent researchers (PROST) and businesswomen.
Page 144
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Finally some general comments from the same workshop:
-I have regarded this program as an internal training, a possibility for competence development.-To be
inside the walls of the university once again, it feels great!-I am impressed by the competence within the
PROST group.-I want to give PROST a big hand!-The competencies within the PROST group are great!
-It gives such inspiration only to be together with all of you. It is gold I take with me home.
Still, it is also important to underline that this experience was not reached without time-
consuming discussions and even confusion. As mentioned above, the development program
was prepared for almost one year before the first workshop. The evaluations among the
researchers/trainers (project staff) emphasize the necessity of this period. Partly, the pilot study
(questionnaire) to 5500 women entrepreneurs in mid-Sweden/Norway was time consuming to
develop and complete. In addition, a lot of time was needed to talk through the learning and
development philosophy. As reflected by three members of the project staff.
-We needed much more time for preparation of the first workshop, than we did for the rest. – We
experienced, in the preparation phase, that we needed time to talk things through. Even though we say
the same and use the same words, the individual meaning of them might be very different – My reflection
after this first workshop is the need of continuous work with and clarification of our role as project staff.
This clarification work among the staff also helped the entrepreneurs to find their role
and understanding of the program philosophy.
-For me it became easier to participate from workshop 2 on. Then I had a better understanding of the
premises of the program and we all knew each other better.
To summarize this discussion: When studying, especially the reflections during and
after each of the workshops, no doubt there is reason to conclude that the mix of various
competencies within the PROST group was a great advantage for the training situation. This
experience is in line with other researchers’ recommendations regarding the development and
design of entrepreneurship education, but even entrepreneurship research, as it will be reflected
upon later (Janssen, Eeckhout, Gailly & Bacq 2009, Hynes, O’Dwyer & Birdthistle 2009,
Mendes & Kehoe 2009, Silberzahn & Silberzahn 2010).
Expanding the understanding of trainers as a group
Following the learning philosophy and the characteristics of enterprising learning
models (Hynes, O’Dwyer & Birdthistle 2009), the exchange of experience and learning from
others in a similar situation was a central aspect of Women & Growth. The value of this is so
overwhelming in the reflections from the entrepreneurs that it would therefore be completely
unreasonable not to declare that the understanding of the entrepreneurship trainer must include
other entrepreneurs as well.
-It was an eye-opener to me to experience and understand the value of utilizing the whole group (of
entrepreneurs) as facilitators and coaches, to discuss with this group, being helped in problem solving
and to get feedback and support. – Finally I’m not alone any more. – This will be a community for mutual
development, - I want to find the right way for me, exchange experience and give help to each other. – It
is amazing how experienced the people sitting next to me are and how important this is for my own
development. – I’m surprised about the willingness to share experience. – Most important for me is being
able to take a meta-view upon my own enterprise with the help of the others, we have so much to give
each other. I didn’t expect to feel myself as comfortable as I do, because of previous experience, together
with all these women. Common interests and goals though create a spirit of solidarity in another way
than only experiences. – I feel I have learned a lot what I might do and not do because of the network
with other entrepreneurs. – My colleagues, sharing experience and conversations with them have been
the most important support.
Page 145
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The individual value of other entrepreneurs in the development program, as part of the
learning network, is obvious, but there are also strong indications that this network will have
value in a longer perspective. Lifelong learning is a conceptual model that has influenced most
educational areas since the mid-1990s (Hagen & Skule 2008). The transfer from linear to
circular thinking where learning and knowledge creation are seen as a continuously ongoing
and lifelong activity has also reached the scene of entrepreneurship education (Fayolle & Kyrö
2008). Even though there is no reason to claim, at this stage a year and a half after the formal
closure, that the Women & Growth program and the networks created among the women
entrepreneurs, have a lifelong character, there is reason to look upon the program as a possibility
for continuous learning. According to Fayolle & Kyrö (2008) this challenges entrepreneurship
education since long-term educational offers and support cannot exclusively be directed
towards specified entrepreneurship groups and ages, more multidisciplinary programs are
needed as well as programs that cross different educational borders. Related to Women &
Growth, the heterogeneity of the group also reflected educational level, but it is important to
mention that this never was problematized as a drawback for the learning and development
process, rather the heterogeneity even with regard to this aspect is mentioned as a positive
factor. The multidisciplinary orientation was taken care of, at least to some degree, by the
recruitment of staff as presented in Table 1 and even when the entrepreneurs were recruited to
the program, as mention in the method section. The following reflections are all given by
entrepreneurs after last workshop in January 2013.
-Thinking about the network I have developed gives me pleasure. I know it will be useful in the future. –
I’ve learned that I’ve never learned enough. – Business consultancy is an ongoing process for me. But I
don’t need to do everything myself, a lot of competencies are available. – The network we have developed
needs to be taken care of. - The changing network was important for me. I broke out from my old one
that I thought I was dependent upon, but I was not. When I changed direction much more action occurred.
The program removed my blinders. I experienced the possibility of working across different professions.
It seems evident that this development program gave possibilities of continuous learning
in the network that was established. One and a half year after ending the program we know
something about continuous business relations and cooperation between the entrepreneurs, but
we do not know the dimension of this. What we have decided though, is that sales and revenues
from the anthology will be used in a follow-up meeting between all participants, entrepreneurs
and staff (PROST). This will be a good occasion to find answers to questions about long-term
effects of the program.
In the literature, the concept of “knowledge reservoirs” (McGrath and Argote 2000,
Widding 2005) is used to describe the total knowledge network that is available when
developing businesses and exploit opportunities. (Shane and Venkataraman 2000, Sarasvathy
2008). The concept seems to be useful within the context of this paper as a description of the
whole learning community or network the 24 entrepreneurs drew upon in their ambitions to
grow their businesses. The dynamic nature of the knowing and knowledge reservoir building
(Sveiby 1997, Choo 1998), also seems to fit the process that is described by the entrepreneurs
themselves. They constantly tested their assumptions and strategies on the available knowledge
network especially by means of knowledge sharing and reflections. Through these methods it
also seems probable that a lot of tacit knowledge was brought up to explicit and verbalized
knowledge (Nonaka 1994). Given that entrepreneurial firms are primarily based on
entrepreneurs’ knowledge, the firms’ knowledge reservoirs largely consist of personal tacit
knowledge. By emphasizing open and shared reflection and personal experience the program
offered possibilities to conceptualize individual bound tacit knowledge and made this available
for the whole learning network.
Page 146
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
The mix of trainers’ competencies and effects upon research
Women & Growth was established upon an INTERREG base which implies
assumptions about cross-border cooperation being preferable regarding factors such as
innovation, competitiveness, knowledge development and research (http://www.interreg-
sverige-norge.com/). Figure 1 illustrates different goals pursued in this program, among them
two research goals, research goals pursued by the 24 entrepreneurs and the PROST group in
cooperation and research goals pursued by members of the PROST group. Among the first
group, the anthology (von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013) definitely was the most important one.
Among the other group paper publications like this one is an example. For both types of goals
though data delivered by the entrepreneurs were the main source and cooperation between
PROST and entrepreneurs, but also between entrepreneurs were crucial in order to succeed. In
this connection the cultural or cross-border dimension is an interesting factor. If we first
consider the entrepreneurs and the inter-relations between them, the material points in one
direction. Even though mid-Sweden and mid-Norway are quite similar in most cultural factors
(Lindvert & Rennemo 2013), the cross-border dimension was appreciated by the entrepreneurs
(Ibid.). The illustrative examples below tell about a situation of similarity that did not make
obstacles for cooperation. On the other hand, the differences experienced created motivation
and energy.
-Irrespective of country it is valuable and helpful to get input and feedback from people in other countries,
it gives new perspectives on culture, business legislation and so on. –I have got important feedback and
information from both countries, the differences are small but being from different countries gives an
extra dimension and increases my curiosity.
More important was probably the cross-border and cross-campus cooperation within the
team of researchers (PROST). As mentioned, the group of ten came from four different research
institutions, three from Norway and one from Sweden, four Swedes and six Norwegians. The
institutions have different programs in entrepreneurship education and different research areas
and traditions as well. This was definitely helpful in developing interdisciplinary results and
offered complementary competencies. Several researchers have argued that this is a way of
developing entrepreneurship education and research (Janssen, Eeckhout, Gailly & Bacq 2009,
Hynes, O’Dwyer & Birdthistle 2009, Mendes & Kehoe 2009), but there is a lack of successful
examples. The cooperation between the four Scandinavian institutions is evaluated as
successful by the researchers themselves, their institutions and the funder. An evident output of
this is the publishing activities as a result of the research goals in the program (Figure 1). Apart
from the anthology, up to now 10 articles are published in international journals and more are
in production. In addition a lot more conference papers are presented. Most of this research was
conducted and later published by means of cross-campus cooperation. As for the entrepreneurs
there are strong indications that the cross-border network among the team of researchers (the
PROST group) will last for years and that the cooperation between research institutions is
strengthened as a result of the program. The data being produced in the program will probably
show value for years and for different research purposes. As one member of the PROST group
put it in one of his/her research reflections: I’m swimming in empirical data!
FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS
Some main findings are emphasized; the first one is related to the competencies that
seem to be crucial to develop among growth oriented entrepreneurs. The Women & Growth
project as well as others (Gstraunthaler & Hendry 2011) underlines the necessity to focus on
developing an entrepreneurial mind-set (Von Friedrichs & Rennemo 2013, Bogren & Mørkved
Page 147
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
2013, Dahlborg 2013). It can also enrich the entrepreneurs with a variety of perspectives
(Bogren, Rennemo & Widding 2013) enabling them to think and act creatively and “outside the
box” and encourage them to take risks. An action-oriented program over a period of time seems
to be very suitable as a program design to manage developing such competencies. In this
program the entrepreneurs were supported by a great variety of competencies among the
trainers/researchers which seems to have been very important. The trainers’ competencies were
able to reflect or mirror the competencies that were needed to develop among the entrepreneurs
in different periods of the development program, needs that were recognized as well on
individual as well on group levels. But even though the learning network among the
entrepreneurs themselves is part of this “knowledge reservoir” (Widding 2005), the focus on
learning from each other, as a basic principle in action-oriented programs generally, seems to
have been very important. Another positive outcome of the AR process in this program was the
competence development among the teachers and researchers from different mid-Scandinavian
universities or research institutions involved in this program. Researchers have argued that there
is an increasing gap between the steadily raising entrepreneurial education programs offered by
universities and the lack of qualified teachers in all educative levels (Singh 2008). This program
has demonstrated the effectiveness of the AR strategy in developing competencies among the
group of trainers. Also, as shown by others (Finkle, Soper, Fox, Reece & Messing 2009),
regional collaboration among different universities enables the whole group of trainers to
benefit from the strengths that are only found in some of the locations.
The findings in the article are presented with reference to a Scandinavian development
and research program based upon general principles from AR. Even though the findings
presented about design principles and heterogeneity and complementarity among the team of
trainers/coaches/researchers seem evident, we have to consider the cultural dimension of the
findings. As Hytti (2008) argues, education does not take place in a vacuum. The effects of
regional, cultural and environmental aspects need to be taken into consideration when designing
an educational program. Women & Growth, took place in the Scandinavian region. Here the
Scandinavian or Nordic welfare model dominates. It emphasizes elements such as equality,
consensus, autonomy, empowerment, cooperation and relational orientation (Schramm-
Nielsen, Lawrence & Sivesind 2004, Lindvert & Rennemo 2013). Consequently, it might be
that the action-oriented path in entrepreneurship education and training is more suitable to
follow in this part of the world than elsewhere. This is an interesting follow-up question for
further research.
Finally, another follow-up research question from this study is further investigation in
the same group of entrepreneurs that participated in Women & Growth in order to find out more
about long-term effects of such an action-oriented program. This applies both to the project
staff (PROST group) and the long-term effects of cooperation among the four research
institutions involved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the 24 Scandinavian entrepreneurs who participated in the Women
& Growth research and development program, for letting my research colleagues and I become
involved in their challenges as they developed their businesses. I also would like to thank my
research colleagues for energizing discussions, fruitful cooperation and helpful reflections
when arranging and designing the program. We all thank INTERREG for funding the program.
Page 148
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
REFERENCES
Ahl, H.J. (2002), The Making of the Female Entrepreneur a discourse analysis of research texts on women's
entrepreneurship , Jönköping: Jönköping International Business School.
Argyris, C., (1990), Bryt forsvarsrutinene. Hvordan lette organisasjonslæring, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget/Pentice
Hall.
Argyris, Putnam &Smith, (1985), Action Science - Concepts, Methods and Skills forResearch and Intervention,
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Arpiainen, R-L, Lackeus, M., Täks, Marge & Tynjälä, P. (2013), “The source and dynamics of emotions in
entrepreneurship education learning process”, Trames, 17(67/62),4, 331-346.
Birch, D. (2004), “Education matters – but does entrepreneurship education?», Academy of Management
Learning and Education, Vol. 3(3), 289-292.
Bogren, M. & Mørkved (2013), “Den kvinnelige entreprenøren – utvikling av foretakeridentitet,” Ch. 5 in Von
Friedrichs, Y. & Rennemo, Ø. Eds., Kvinners foretak og foretakende kvinner – Vekstentreprenører i
Skandinavia, Trondheim: Akademika Forlag.
Bogren, M., Rennemo, Ø. & Widding, Ø. (2013), Ch.7 in in Von Friedrichs, Y. & Rennemo, Ø. Eds., Kvinners
foretak og foretakende kvinner – Vekstentreprenører i Skandinavia, Trondheim: Akademika Forlag.
Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D. & Maguire, P. (2003), Why action research? Action Research, vol. 1, 9–28.
Chandler, G. N. and Lyon, D. W. (2001), ‘Issues of research design and construct measurement in
entrepreneurship research: the past decade’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 25, 4, 101–13.
Choo, C. W. (1998), The Knowing Organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Coghlan,
D. & Brannick, T. (2010), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, London: Sage.
Czuchry,A., Yasin, M. & Gonzales , M. (2010), “Effective entrepreneurial education: A framework for
innovation and implementation”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol.7:39-55.
Dalborg, C. (2013), “Tillväxt I kvinnors företag“,Ch. 4 in Von Friedrichs, Y. & Rennemo,Ø. Eds., Kvinners foretak
og foretakende kvinner – Vekstentreprenører i Skandinavia,ademika Forlag.
Daly, S.P. (2001), “Student-operated internet business: true experiential learning in entrepreneurship and retail
management”, Journal of Marketing Education, vol. 23 (3), 204-216.
Davidsson, P., Low, M. and Wright, M. (2001), ‘Editors’ Introduction: Low and MacMillan ten years on:
achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research’. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, vol. 25, 3.
Dick, B. (2006), ’Action Research literature’, Action Research, vol. 4:439-458.
Fayolle, A., (2010), “Insight from an international perspective on entrepreneurship education” in Fayolle, A. (ed.),
Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 3, Edvard Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Fayolle, A. & Kyrö, P. (2008), The Dynamics between Entrepreneurship, Environment and Education,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Finkle, T.A., Soper, J.C., Fox, D., Reece, J. & Messing, J. (2010), «Constructing an innovative model of
entrepreneurship education thorough regional collaboration» Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,
vol.12: 43-66.
Grant, S. (2007), Learning through being and doing. Action research, vol. 5, 265–274.
Greenwood, D.J. & Levin, M. (2007), Introduction to action research: social research for change, Thousand Oaks
Calif: Sage
Gstraunthaler, T. & Hendry, S. (2011), “Entrepreneurial and accounting education through action-based learning:
The genesis project”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol.14:125-146.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2
nd
edition.
Hagen, A. & Skule, S. (2008), Kompetansereformen og livslang læring, Status 2008. Fafo-rapport 2008:7
Heron, J. (1996), Co-operative Inquiry – Research into the Human Condition, UK: Sage Publication Ltd.
Hills, G. E. (1988), Variations in University entrepreneurship education: An empirical study of an evolving field,
Journal of Business Venturing, Volume 3, Issue 2, 109-122.
Hynes, B., O’Dwyer, M. & Birdthistle, N. (2009), “Entrepreneurship education: meeting the skills needs of
graduates in Irland”, in Page West II, G., Gatewood, E.J. & Shaver, K.G., Handbook of University-wide
Entrepreneurship Education, UK/USA: Edward Elgar.
Hytti, U. (2008), “Enterprise educationin different cultural settings and at different school levels,” in Fayol, A. &
Kyrö, P., The dynamics between Entrepreneurship, Environment and Education, Cheltenham: E. Elgar.
Janssen, F., Eeckhout, V., Gailly, B. & Bacq, S. (2009), “Interdisciplinarity in cross-campus entrepreneurship
education”, in Page West II, G., Gatewood, E.J. & Shaver, K.G., Handbook of University-wide
Entrepreneurship Education, UK/USA: Edward Elgar.
Kuckertz, A. (2013), “Entrepreneurship education: Status Quo and prospective developments”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, vol.16: 59-71.
Page 149
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Kyrö, P., (2008), “A theoretical framework for teaching and learning entrepreneurship”, International Journal of
Business and Globalisation, 2,1,39-55.
Lautenschläger, A. & Haase, H. (2011), “The myth of entrepreneurship education: Seven arguments against
teaching business creation at universities”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 14:147-160.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1990), Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lindvert, M. & Rennemo, Ø. (2013), “Skandinavien som arena för kvinnliga entreprenörer”, chap. 3 in Von
Friedrichs & Rennemo (eds.) Kvinners foretak og foretakende kvinner – Vekstentreprenører i
Skandinavia, Trondheim: Akademika Forlag.
McGrath, J. E., and L. Argote. (2000), “Group Processes in Organizational Contexts.” In Blackwell Handbook of
Social Psychology: Group Processes, edited by M. A.Hogg and R. S. Tindale, 603-627. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Mcmullan, W. E., & Long, W. A. (1987), Entrepreneurship education in the nineties. Journal of Business
Venturing, Volume 2, Issue 3, 261-275.
Mendes, A. & Kehoe, C. (2009), “Academic entrepreneurship: possibilities and pitfalls,” in Page West II, G.,
Gatewood, E.J. & Shaver, K.G., Handbook of University-wide Entrepreneurship Education, UK/USA:
Edward Elgar.
Minzberg, H. (2004), Managers not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Management
and Management Development. Harlow, Essex: FT Prentice Hall.
Nelson, T. & Duffy, S. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education: women, men, sex and gender”, in Fayolle, A. (ed.),
Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, vol.3, UK/USA: Edward Elgar.
Page West III, G., Gatewood, E.J. & Shaver, K.G. (2009), Handbook of University-wide Entrepreneurship
Education, UK/USA: Edward Elgar.
Pittaway, L. & Cope, J. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence, International
Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 (5) 497-510.
Reason P. & Bradbury H. (2008), The Sage Handbook of Action Research, Sage Publications.
Rennemo, Øystein (2006), Levér og Lær – aksjonsbasert utvikling i resultatorienterte organisasjoner, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Revans, R. (1977), “Action learning and the nature of knowledge”, in Education and training,
Nov/Dec. 1977.
Sarasvathy, S. D. 2008, Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Schramm-Nielsen, J., Lawrence, P. & Sivesind, K.H. (2004), Management in Scandinavia: culture, context and
change, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sexton, D. L. (1997), ‘Entrepreneurship research needs and issues’. In Sexton, D. and Smilor, R. (Eds),
Entrepreneurship 2000. Chicago, IL: Upstart Publishing Company.
Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2000, “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.” Academy of
Management Review 25 (1): 217-226.
Silberzahn, Philippe. & Silberzahn, Pierre (2010), “Artists and scientists as entrepreneurs: a call for a new
research agenda for entrepreneurship”. In Fayolle A., Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship
Education. Volume 3: International Perspectives. Edvard Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Singh, R.P. (2008), “The shortage of academically trained entrepreneurship faculty: Implications, challenges and
opportunities”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol.11:117-130.
Sveiby, K. E. 1997, The New Organizational Wealth. Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.Torbert, W. (2004), Action inquiry : the secret of timely and
transforming leadership / Bill Torbert with Suzanne Cook-Greuter ... [et al.]. - San Francisco, CA :
Berrett Koehler.
Von Friedrichs, Y. & Rennemo, Ø. Eds. (2013), Kvinners foretak og foretakende kvinner – Vekstentreprenører i
Skandinavia, Trondheim: Akademika Forlag.
Widding, L. Ø. (2005), Building Entrepreneurial Knowledge Reservoirs, International Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development.12, 4, 595-612.
Åsvoll, H. & Jacobsen, P.J. (2012), “A case study: Action based entrepreneurship education. How experience
problems can be overcome and collaboration problems mitigated,” Journal of Entrepreneurship
Education, vol.15: 75-97.
Page 150
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Page 151
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
BUILDING AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
EQUITY OWNERSHIP POLICY FOR
ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS: THREE
DIFFERENT APPROACHES
David Rahn, California State University
Tammy Schakett, Ohio Northern University
David Tomczyk, Quinnipiac University
ABSTRACT
Intellectual property (IP) protection and co-ownership of student businesses is an issue
every entrepreneurship program needs to address. However, there is little literature about how
to do this. After reviewing the literature, we present three different approaches to such policies: a
hands-off approach, an evolving approach, and a structured approach. For each, we describe the
methods for student IP and co-ownership issues and the justification behind these approaches,
offering insight for educators seeking to build their own programs. At the end we suggest factors to
consider for developing a university policy or refining an existing one.
BACKGROUND
Many entrepreneurship classes and programs throughout the U.S. have students work in
teams to develop ideas. Sometimes such exercises are just that—opportunities for students to
practice skills taught in the class. Other times, they are serious efforts to help students launch
businesses. Pedagogically, there are a variety of justifications for doing this, one of the key being
that it offers hands-on and realistic experiences under the supervision of a faculty or staff mentor.
Other schools have Tech Transfer Offices or otherwise offer students the opportunity to develop
businesses based on other people’s ideas under the supervision or with the involvement of the
school. But as anyone who works with students can attest, not every student idea actually works
out. For a variety of reasons, student teams may dissolve, fall apart, or just fade away.
The problem, though, is that as soon as two or more people work together on a business
idea, they are legally partners in a business entity (Uniform Partnership Act §101). Many people
are unaware of this law and how it connects to every student team. Even worse, many faculty
and staff are unaware of the legal ramifications that may affect them as a result, potentially with
significant legal or financial ramifications for all parties involved—which includes the instructor,
other classmates, and even the school.
Three Scary Stories
At Quinnipiac University, two students formed a team to create interactive stories about
current events for children. Over the course of the semester, they both worked incredibly hard
and, with a shoestring budget, created a functional app—and a deep, abiding hatred of each
other. When the semester ended, both students disagreed with who had the rights to the business.
With no clear policy to guide them, they threatened to bring in lawyers. They both ended up
pursuing other ideas before that final step.
Page 152
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
At California State University, Chico, two students formed a team to create an early
version of a crowdsourcing platform for inventors. The pitch was compelling and believable and
the students were encouraged by various mentors, family and friends. A significant amount of
progress was made and meaningful milestones were accomplished. One student graduated and
out of necessity had to move back home and find work. The other remained in school, where he
was able to actively pursue the business idea. Shortly, the two began arguing over the lack of
effort by the participant living remotely. The student who remained active argued that the other
should give up all equity or reengage. That individual refused on the grounds that his early
contributions were substantial. Several months later, after much arguing, talking with attorneys,
and the realization that without costly legal action no further progress would be made - two very
aggravated individuals both began to pursue other ideas and an opportunity was lost.
At Ohio Northern University, faculty and guests watched a senior capstone presentation
given by a collaborative team of business and engineering students on the feasibility of an
automated mower. A faculty member asked who owned the product. After some confusion the
business students pointed at the engineering students who shrugged and said, “Yeah, we think
it’s ours.” There was a minor uproar from the back of room as a third group, the original student
team who had pitched the product in an elevator pitch competition, informed all present that it
was their idea. All the students were upset as well as the faculty advisors over the confusion of
ownership. With the intervention of a parent, who happened to be a patent attorney, and pizza,
the issue was eventually resolved.
If these stories sound disconcerting, they should, and they happen every day on campuses
worldwide. The purpose of this paper is to provide some basic guidance on how to solve these
problems for colleges and universities the U.S. This is not meant to be legal advice. Each country
has its own laws and regulations, so the solutions presented in this paper may not be applicable
to faculty and staff in other countries.
The Inadvertent Partnership Problem
There has been a plethora of research into technology transfer policies on campuses
primarily covering licensing agreements, joint research ventures, and the impact of policies on
faculty and researchers (Siegal & Phon, 2005). This paradigm concentrates on the organizational
level of entrepreneurial partnership activity on campuses between the universities, faculty, and
businesses/government organizations (Siegal & Phon, 2005). Other researchers in this area
concentrate on entrepreneurship pedagogy impact. For example, Silva, Henriques, and Carvalho
(2008) examine entrepreneurial education for engineering students, citing the need for
“intellectual property awareness” and how they teach this in an entrepreneurship course.
However, one of the biggest potential legal risks arising on campuses today comes out of
student business plan teams, and in particular, the claim of co-ownership that might be raised by
team members under traditional principles of partnership law. After extensive research, it was
found that despite the potential problems that could arise, little literature has addressed this topic,
and of the relevant topics, most were written by Professor Anthony Luppino, culminating in his
most recent articles on the topic (Litton, Patterson & Little, 2014; Luppino, 2009, 2012). While
Luppino has done an excellent job discussing the legal ramifications that arise from this
challenge, the lack of literature indicates that the dangers of the inadvertent partnership—student
teams that form legal business entities even without any formal acknowledgement or
documentation—may not be adequately addressed by entrepreneurship programs and classes,
leaving open the possibility of potential harm to students, professors, and schools alike.
Page 153
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
When students work on a team, the potential for disputes regarding the intellectual
property rights that can be asserted by faculty, students, and the university can arise when
innovation occurs at a university or with the use or assistance of university resources. Luppino
(2009) identifies these issues as a potential impediment to university-based innovation and
entrepreneurship. He also addresses the problem of what he calls the “accidental or ill-defined
partnership.” For this paper, we will refer to these as “inadvertent partnerships” as we believe
this phrase captures both accidental and ill-defined partnerships.
Luppino specifically addresses the problem of a co-ownership claim arising out of
student teamwork at universities including student team projects in traditional classroom settings
and student team projects in business planning or idea/innovation competitions. With regard to a
team project in a traditional joint course-work assignment, he explains:
Thus, it is possible that, if the assignment generates valuable property, claims to
ownership or at least shares of proceeds from exploitation of that property might logically be
made by every student on the team, course instructors or teaching assistants and perhaps the
university itself (Luppino, 2009; pg. 414).
These concerns are exacerbated by the fact that there is a precedent for successful
businesses arising from student work as part of a class (such as in the case of Fred Smith and
FedEx), extracurricular activities or work (such as with Bill Gates and Microsoft), or from social
interactions or experiences directly connected to the school (such as with Mark Zuckerberg and
Facebook). Such high success businesses have financial and reputational impacts on the school,
the professors, and the students who may have participated in the formation of a business
(Herrington, 2010). This means that participants in the process have an incentive to pursue—
possibly through legal channels—any windfalls. (Herrington 2010, 22) notes:
When those products are patentable, universities’ and students’ contributions often
become mixed, which leads to legal consequences for both students and their universities. Not
only students but also professors and administrators who work with them would benefit from
clear assessments of their legal relationships before entering them.
The courts have ruled that schools are not entitled to any portion of the works (the
business itself or intellectual property developed for it) or any results (financial, reputational,
etc.) of student businesses unless the students were employed by the university or college and
such stipulations were included in the employment contract and/or the students were utilizing
resources and equipment exclusive to the school, such as a strain of bacteria only the school has
access to. Similarly, a professor has no claims to the ideas or intellectual property developed in a
class unless the professor acted beyond his or her capacity as an instructor and truly contributed
to the business, such as substantive financial investment or assuming a key role in the business,
and/or the development of its intellectual property, such as contributing substantively and
creatively to the creation of the intellectual property (Luppino, 2009). However, this leaves open
the dilemma of students working in a team in the class.
According to the Uniform Partnership Act §101 (1994) a partnership is “an association of
two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.” While intent to form a co-
ownership association for profit is necessary to create a partnership, the parties do not need to
have expressly intended to form a “partnership.” Partnership statutes generally include a list of
factors that will help to determine the existence of a partnership relationship, but there is no
bright line test for making this determination. This means it is left to the courts to determine the
Page 154
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
issue on a case-by-case basis. For students on a team, this means that they may have co-
ownership claims on any and all intellectual property developed as a result of a class unless they
have an alternative option to pursue for the class. Universities that have established policies
and/or professors who implement policies in their classrooms can help to mitigate any potential
problems, but there is no perfect solution.
While Luppino concludes that “it seems unlikely a court would find all of the necessary
elements of partnership in a typical course project,” there is a stronger claim of co-ownership in
a course structured as a business planning class (Luppino, 2009; pg. 415). While by itself this
can create long-term problems, such classes often face short-term dilemmas as well as the classes
may be connected to competitions, either as part of the class itself or encourages students and
student teams to participate in external competitions. These competitions usually have financial
and in-kind rewards in addition to the notoriety of placing in the competition. The addition of
these external prizes that go beyond a grade mean that the students must wrestle with the
ownership issues such as dividing “profit” (the winnings from the competition) and reputational
considerations like titles in the business and dealing with publicity for their business (Luppino,
2009).
Litton, Patterson & Little (2014) note, “the average undergraduate business student has
no appreciation for the realities of the business organizations they may have formed.” Professor
Luppino’s advice to universities is clear: “First and foremost, a university should inform students
of what is at stake when they create innovations in course projects, advise them that significant
rights and obligations may be involved from the outset and explain to them that they would be
well served to get the advice of their own legal counsel in sorting through these matters”
(Luppino, 2009; pg. 417). Luppino further recommends that students be given disclosures about
the legal ramifications of their actions and decisions. They should be given information on how
to find and engage legal counsel, particularly lawyers with relevant specialties and who may
offer their services for free or at discounted rates.
Additionally, Litton, Patterson & Little (2014) suggest that universities consider four
factors when forming students teams; 1) voluntariness; 2) profitability; 3) intent; and 4) timing.
Voluntariness refers to whether students formed teams or the instructor formed the teams.
Partnership formation requires voluntary formation; however, even if students are placed
together, if they choose to work on an idea and pursue it beyond a class assignment, such an
action indicates an agreement to voluntarily enter into a partnership with their teammates.
Profitability is determined by the purpose of the course and the team. If the course requirement is
completion of an assignment and not pursuit of profit, then for all of the teams in the class, most
likely a partnership is not formed. However, intent refers to what students hope to accomplish.
Again, if the goal of the team is the pursuit of a grade, then generally a partnership is not formed,
but if the team seeks to earn profit, whether for a grade or for business, partnership status applies.
Timing refers to when the project changes into actual pursuit for profit and the intent of the team.
While these factors need to be considered, every university has differing policies and local, state,
and federal laws could potentially impact this issue. As a result, no one approach seems to fit
every situation.
Page 155
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
THE THREE APPROACHES
There is not necessarily one “right” way to create IP and ownership policies. Rather,
there are multiple ways that are dependent upon many factors. These approaches can range from
putting the responsibility for co-ownership on the students (a hands-off approach) to having a
detailed and involved approach to cover all legal bases (a structured approach). However, these
are two endpoints of a continuum, and many schools, based on their comfort with
entrepreneurship, concern about legal ramifications, the comfort level of the professors, and the
culture of the school and students, among other considerations, may fall somewhere in-between.
Presented are three approaches that three universities, Quinnipiac University, California State
University, Chico, and Ohio Northern University use: one from each end of the continuum and
one from the middle. Each approach was developed to meet the needs of our students while
matching the culture of the entrepreneurship programs we have built. These are examples of how
schools can approach building their own policies, explaining the justification the decisions made
by the three universities so that others may understand the thinking and use these as a basis for
crafting their own policies. Provided below is a summary of the three approaches, followed by an
in-depth look at each school to better explain the reasoning behind it, the environment in which it
has been applied, and any drawbacks to the approach.
A Hands-Off Approach: Quinnipiac University
At Quinnipiac University, when approaching how we wanted to address the topic of
inadvertent partnerships (students working on a team together to build a business), we considered
the following:
1. We did not want our students to focus so much on this topic that it would become a barrier to them
sharing ideas. At the same time, we wanted them to understand the full legal implications of their
actions in and out of class.
2. We wanted students to use ideas that they were serious about starting, rather than using fictional ideas.
Passion leads to greater learning outcomes, and we wanted to facilitate this.
3. We wanted to encourage collaboration not only between students on a team, but also across teams.
Ideas formed in isolation are rarely as high quality as those developed with input from other people.
4. Any document or policy we developed needed to be fair to all people involved: the student(s) who had
the idea, any that helped develop the idea, and the professor of the class or staff member mentoring the
team.
5. Asking people to sign non-disclosure agreements is not an effective way to protect an idea. First and
foremost, they are incredibly difficult to enforce. Students are bound to discuss interesting ideas
outside the classroom, which may include the team’s ideas and the ideas of other teams. In addition,
we have designed our program to encourage people to actively test and validate their assumptions
about their business models, including verifying with their target market that they are in fact interested.
This leads to further dissemination of the idea and additional people who would need to sign the
document. Moreover, at least one class has a competition open to the public at the end of the semester
with the ideas presented to a panel of judges and the public, while others encourage students to be
involved in entrepreneurship events and competitions outside the school.
Page 156
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
6. We wanted to avoid a Facebook-like scandal of people arguing that their contributions to a successful
business were not given credit as a situation like that would be detrimental to the Entrepreneurship
program, the University as a whole, the professor or staff member in charge, and team members acting
in good faith.
7. Entrepreneurship professors and most staff members mentoring teams are rarely experts in legal
matters or intellectual property, and asking professors to guide students through the complexities of the
law and intellectual property regulations is doing both the professors and the students a disservice.
Our solution to these problems was two-fold. First, we developed a disclosure statement.
This statement alerts the students to the challenge of who owns an idea in a team, using an
abstracted example of a team of four students who develop a business idea in the class. After the
class ends, one of the students continues to pursue the idea, developing it into a successful
business. The other team members find out and, after complimenting their peer, note how the
business was all of their idea, followed by asking about when they might see the profit from
“their” idea.
After presenting the students with this scenario, we then offer them alternatives to sharing
their idea in class if they are concerned that such a scenario might happen to them. The first
option is that the student may choose to be a “free agent,” a person who helps someone else
develop his or her idea. The second option is that the student could develop a business they
designed specifically for the course rather than sharing an idea they have been working on
independently or as part of an independent team.
We conclude the disclosure statement with a notice to the student that the University
supports and encourages students to work collaboratively. We point them to relevant University
policies (of which Quinnipiac University has few). Finally, we note that this disclosure statement
is not legal advice and that students are encouraged to seek their own legal counsel if they have
questions or concerns.
During the first week of any class in which the students are creating a business, we
introduce the students to the disclosure statement and have them read it as assigned reading.
Students are encouraged to discuss the course policy and the disclosure statement with their
teams and work out an arrangement that best suits them.
Students are also informed that no one will sign NDA or confidentiality agreements as
part of the class nor in any outside events connected to the class such as business plan
competitions or events, even ones run as part of the class.
Non-Exclusive Right to Pursue Ideas
In an entrepreneurship class, the students will inevitably hear the other teams’ ideas,
some of which have the potential to be highly successful ideas. However, once the class is over,
the instructor has little to no ability to follow up with every single student for the foreseeable
future (much less the indefinite future) to ensure that only those people who worked on an idea
from the class are pursuing it. In addition, someone pursuing an idea usually further refines and
evolves it, combines it with other ideas, or modifies it in some other way. We, as academics,
instructors, and mentors, do not want to assume a policing role, having to determine whether or
not an idea is sufficiently changed to be considered a “separate” idea, determining where an idea
Page 157
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
came from since a person may be exposed to an idea from multiple sources, and having to
continually follow up with people to check whether or not they are following the class policy. In
addition, this more closely maps to the U.S. patent system that allows—and indeed encourages—
people to build upon the ideas of others.
To date, no student over the past five years, to our knowledge, has intentionally or
unintentionally used another person or group’s idea. What we have found, and many of our
colleagues have also found, is that there are two major barriers to students starting businesses
around ideas other people have created. The first is that students tend to view the amount of work
and effort another team invested into a business as a huge obstacle to pursuing the idea
themselves. The original team has already invested a semester of their time at a minimum, which
includes meetings with experts, planning sessions, and countless discussions and debates over
the span of months. To have to recreate even a portion of that is daunting.
The second barrier is that students are rarely as passionate about another team’s ideas as
they are about ideas they create themselves. The end result is that, no matter how interesting the
idea appears to be, students are rarely motivated to claim that idea for themselves. The prospect
of working on someone else’s idea is a bit too similar to having to work for a company for those
who are truly entrepreneurial, while at the same time needing to launch a business is too
entrepreneurial for people who are more intrapreneurs. The end result is that students may talk
about what a great idea someone has, but rarely do they go any further than the conversation.
Equal Ownership of an Idea
By law, all people in a team who contribute to the development of a business idea and/or
intellectual property (whether a patentable idea, copyrightable code, or some other protected
material) are equal owners with non-exclusionary rights to pursue and use the idea. To reinforce
this, we specifically choose to remain independent of any determination of who the originator of
an idea was and what contribution each person made to it. Not only is such determination
incredibly difficult, we also have no legal right to say that one person’s contributions to the
group were or were not significant and thereby affects ownership of the idea. For example, while
one person may have an idea coming into the class, that idea gets shaped by the team over the
course of the semester, sometimes radically. Determining who contributed which part of an idea
is difficult enough; accounting for the fact that one or more ideas that were not included in the
final design led to those ideas makes the situation even more complicated. As we want students
to focus on contributing to the business’s development rather than on documenting each
individuals’ contributions, having a default policy of equal ownership makes the most sense.
Letting the students determine how they wish to divide ownership of a business or
intellectual property at a pace of their choosing also reflects that the teams rarely know up front
who will want to continue pursuing the idea after the end of the class, who will be in which
leadership positions, who will contribute money, resources, knowledge, expertise, and time to
the project, among many other considerations that could affect ownership. By freeing the
students from determining this at the beginning when their idea is barely formed or requiring it at
the end, we allow them to actively focus on the business and discuss the topic in a time and
manner when it best suits their needs.
Page 158
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Ability to Adjust Ownership of an Idea
Not every team works on an idea created for the class; some work on an idea one or more
people had and have worked on prior to the class. Not every team has everyone contribute
equally, even if some or all of the people are going to continue working on the business after the
class ends. For these instances among others, we allow teams to create their own ownership
distributions without locking them into one fixed agreement. For example, we had one team with
a person who had been working on his idea over the summer, doing an independent study even to
help develop the idea. When he recruited his team, he added four individuals, but he was clear
that he wanted to continue pursuing this idea as his idea, that the four other individuals would not
have equity in the business. The four people were amenable to this, they put the agreement in
writing, and the team had no issues relating to ownership. Another team revisited their ownership
split halfway through the class when they realized that not all of the team was committed to
pursuing the idea after the class finished. All of this was done independently of their instructors.
Our students appreciate the flexibility and being treated as young professionals, and we as
educators can direct them to experts when they have questions.
No Confidentiality Agreements/NDAs
Students are informed that they should be sharing their ideas with other people, but that
they need to be smart about what they share. Such documents are near impossible to enforce,
which means that having people sign them without proper follow-up could leave the instructor or
mentor in a tough situation where s/he must attempt to unravel whether or not a breach of the
agreement has happened, and if so, how and to what extent, often based solely on hearsay. It may
also leave the instructor legally liable if the instructor is issuing and requiring the completion of
the forms. We point our students to such documents and we discuss when such documents are
appropriate, and we also discuss appropriate sharing of their ideas, encouraging discussion with
legal expertise if students seek more information.
Drawbacks
While the hands-off approach has many advantages, there are several downsides to the
approach. The first is the onus it places on the instructor or mentor to ensure that teams are
educated about potential legal implications to their businesses and have access to or are pointed
in the direction of adequate legal counsel. This approach requires an active involvement of the
faculty and staff up front, which means planned interactions early in the students’ academic
careers and/or classes to convey the necessary information.
One other challenge for this approach is that some students may be uncomfortable with
the necessary conversations they must have with their teammates about how they wish to
structure the equity in their idea. Without a clear policy in place, such students may not have the
structure they need to make the best decisions possible for themselves or their businesses. This
approach depends on students having the maturity and drive to seek their own guidance. At the
other end, students given the freedom to discuss co-ownership on their own time sometimes
focus on the issue at inappropriate times, such as when the team is first forming. This can result
in friction as the business develops and can detract attention from other more important
components of the business. In addition, if the conversation happens when an instructor or
mentor is not around, it is a lost opportunity for a teaching moment.
Page 159
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Hands-Off Approach Conclusion
By removing ourselves from the legal decisions relating to co-ownership and referring
our students to subject matter experts, we prevent the faculty from being put in a position where,
well-intended or not, they may be giving bad legal advice. Students get to experience the real-
world decisions of forming teams and creating intellectual property and businesses with
oversight, but they never feel locked into a position. In addition, faculty are not required to
assume additional responsibilities as “idea police,” allowing them to focus on working with the
students and their ideas. This comes at the sacrifice of control over the conversations—both in
when and how they occur.
An Evolving Approach: California State University, Chico
This narrative speaks to the approach of a single course and incubator program and does
not represent a University or program-wide policy, except where noted, or the approaches of
other instructors in the Entrepreneurship program. The course and incubator programs described
are intended to support students who would like to understand what a real attempt to launch a
business requires; given that intention, it is especially appropriate for this course and related
incubator program to concern itself with these issues. This write-up identifies the approach as it
exists at the time of this writing.
At California State University, Chico, our e-Incubator program’s goal is to launch
businesses online as directly and efficiently as possible, and there is a corresponding course
which allows students to earn credit for learning similar materials. The e-Incubator program is
available to students across the university and expects students to launch a business, the course is
an elective in the entrepreneurship program and teaches students what is entailed in the process,
offering them an opportunity to launch or not.
The nature of the e-Incubator and course is a focus on the “Lean Start-Up” approach,
which favors a rapid launch to test business models. Our approach is, “Test the business model
using customer development techniques, and adjust as needed.” We determined that for many
student businesses, students themselves are potential customers, and so the course was ideal for a
“mastermind” format where students from the whole class give significant feedback to all other
student projects in the class. Students would sit in the “Founder’s Chair” and get peppered
politely with questions by their peers. Right from the first instance of this course, students
identified the mastermind approach as a very valuable element of the course.
Given the fast-paced nature of the course and the highly collaborative culture, several
guiding principles emerged to ensure the program provides an effective experiential exercise to
students and teams working toward launching businesses and testing business models. The
following guiding principles emerged:
1. Acknowledge that there is an actual potential for ownership/partnership issues and take steps to avoid
these issues by taking reasonable precautions using our best available understanding.
2. Encourage students to understand the implications associated with corporate structure, IP protection,
and team structure reasonably early.
3. Encourage students to begin participating in the “mastermind” approach to sharing as early as possible;
students should feel generally safe and secure while sharing, a feeling of camaraderie should emerge
from the safety of the environment.
4. Impart a sense of seriousness about trying as many ideas as possible that students feel are good. In
other words, if possible, don’t hold back your best idea—bring out your best stuff and go for it.
Page 160
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
5. Recommend that students invest in legal advice as appropriate. Our experience indicates that students
who pay for legal advice actually feel more committed, and thus by having some “skin in the game,”
seem to have a sense of commitment and this translates into higher engagement.
As students encounter this program, they immediately recognize that the notions of
collaborating and safeguarding IP appear to be at odds, and naturally raise these as issues. This
further opens the door to additional concerns. These concerns can be summarized as:
The University Policy on student IP and how it affects student businesses and ideas;
Protecting ideas in a collaborative class;
Handling equity (splitting, retaining, getting it back) while working on a team;
Dealing with a desire to change ideas partway through the class;
Incorporating as a legal entity; and
Preparing for a pitch to the Accelerator Fund.
These concerns came up with regularity in each class and over the course of several
semesters a common framework has emerged:
1. Present a set of overarching recommendations to provide context for the course;
2. Clarify the University Policy on student IP;
3. Clarify the classroom IP policy for intra-class understanding and agreement; and
4. Clarify the inter-student IP policy for managing teams and IP and encourage early understanding and
decision making while remaining as flexible as possible.
Overarching Course Recommendations
First and foremost, students are encouraged to decide what they want to get out of this
course. Students are encouraged to develop ideas they are passionate about. Most students arrive
with one or more ideas they are passionate about and want to pursue. There are other students
who come in without an idea they are passionate about, but instead have a desire to learn the
techniques for anticipated use at a later time. There are also students who have one or more ideas
but still prefer to learn the techniques now and apply them later. The point is to encourage them
to understand what they want to accomplish, what the ramifications are related to that purpose,
and what they need to understand so they can take the appropriate steps. For example, a student
who comes into the course without an idea and wants to join another student or team should be
ready to accept that he or she is working on the project as a course effort, not as a business
partner.
Students in the course have been exposed to corporate forms in a previous required
course. We encourage students to immediately review materials covered in the prerequisite
course since different corporate forms have different ownership, profit distribution and tax
implications. This is a key area for hiring an attorney given its importance and level of
complexity. Information, but not advice, is provided on the topic. Students should be able to get
to the point where they can articulate and defend, in their own words, reasons for choosing a
specific corporate form as a strategic element of their business model.
Page 161
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
University Student IP Policy
For our students, one of the central concerns is not the equity split, but rather the
ownership of IP generated during the formation process. We thus focus much of our co-
ownership discussions around IP and provide two sources of information on this topic. First,
students are directed to the actual university executive memorandum. Then, in class, a brief
discussion covers important highlights.
In any ordinary class or function in which students enroll or participate, students are
creating intellectual property they own. The value of this IP is undetermined and may of course
be negligible. The primary means our university uses to establish an agreement relating to
ownership of student IP is termed “extraordinary support.” This level of support “is normally
agreed upon in advance and set forth in a contract.” The memorandum indicates that in the
absence of a contract with the university, it is likely that extraordinary support does not exist.
Students are told that if there are questions in their mind about ownership, they have an
obligation to themselves and their team to resolve this to everyone’s satisfaction. Students are
responsible for clarifying the ownership question with a private attorney or university attorney
dealing in such matters.
Classroom IP Policy
The course syllabus contains a few important statements. Neither has been tested in any
legal process, but they do seem to give students a general sense that everyone intends to play
fair. The first is a “No Partnership” statement, and the second is a ‘Confidentiality’ statement.
The “No Partnership” clause states that students come into the class and agree that while they
will provide feedback on many other students’ ideas presented in class, they agree that there is
no implied partnership. The language is more expressive than that, but essentially they are
relinquishing all rights to their contributions to other teams, much the way an independent
contractor does in a professional client-contractor relationship. Given that they themselves
receive feedback on their own project, there does seem to exist valuable consideration, which
may be important when considering the enforceability of the language.
The “Confidentiality” clause is simply intended to put all students on notice that only the
creators and/or owners of projects are free to discuss them outside of class. This clause is
intended to ease students’ minds rather than provide legal protection; indeed many students
participate in competitions, surveying and interviewing of potential customers at some point in
the semester, and at that point, the ideas are exposed to the general public. The clause specifies
that we as a class respect that we are privileged in that we are receiving confidential information
on other students’ projects.
Neither of these approaches has been tested legally, so there is no precedent upon which
to assume these are enforceable. However, they do serve to initiate the spirit of collegiality and
support that we are trying to impart into the classroom, so they are important from that
perspective. While the status of syllabi as legal contracts has been brought under scrutiny from
time to time, it seems more prudent to include them than to omit them.
Page 162
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Inter-Student IP Policy
Over the course of a semester, interest in and expectations of the business idea can
change dramatically. There are a few approaches that have been used here, and they are flexible
so they can cover a range of situations. One approach is the use of a standard contract, another is
the use of a “class project” contract, and the last is a new approach (or rather a new take on an
existing concept of dynamic equity splits) we are experimenting with that allocates “potential”
equity based on agreed upon factors and measured contribution.
In a case where student teams come into the class, have already agreed upon an equity
split, and completed some development on the project, they are encouraged to formalize the
agreement by putting it into writing via a standard contract. Despite how straightforward this
appears on the surface, problems with these occur fairly often. The main problem that occurs is
that one member decides he is not interested in the project anymore at some point, for example
when the semester ends and the project has not yet taken off. Early project enthusiasm can lead
to somewhat irrational thinking, and in retrospect, students may indicate they ‘over-shared’
equity and wish they had been more thoughtful about the division.
A “class project” contract is basically used by founders when they enter the class
unwilling to give an equity sharing deal due to the amount of work they have already done on the
project. Some students turn out to be very willing to join projects like this. They acknowledge
that they are joining a project that a student has worked on previously, and that equity is not
being offered. This approach has been used several times. In each case, the participants have
decided that a modest monetary stipend was appropriate and subsequently was offered,
negotiated and settled upon. The reason a monetary stipend was offered was based on
suggestions by an attorney that a contract should provide value to each party and that some
amount of money would demonstrate this was done. In two cases, an equity position was offered
at the end of the semester to one or more of those who originally joined without an equity
position.
Finally, there are many cases where students are unsure of how to structure a deal and
want maximum flexibility, having team members earn equity. For this situation, , under the
direction of legal counsel, students consider several approaches, one popular one being based on
the ideas outlined by Mike Moyers in his book Slicing Pie. In this arrangement, different types of
contributions are defined and categorized, and valuations are assigned. Contributions in the
category of work like accounting and marketing are typically given hourly dollar valuations,
which students can figure out fairly easily, along with multiplier values based on whether
payment is made or not. Contributions in the form of cash, property, or other tangible goods are
given agreed upon values. For example, the group may decide that early cash contributions are
actually worth 4X the amount of the original contribution to account for risk. These valuations
can be negotiated and agreed upon ahead of time. Then, as the team moves ahead, it tracks the
investments for various contributions. In this approach, each individual is earning future equity.
Page 163
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
Drawbacks
Whereas the hands-off approach allows great flexibility in who can be on a team and how
roles may be structured, this more structured approach needs things to be better defined in order
to ensure that the proper IP and co-ownership policies are applied to the team. This goes beyond
just knowing whether or not the team was pre-formed or if the team will accept other people as
employees rather than co-founders. Outside members joining a team may impose additional
policies to come into play; for example, a professor or staff member joining a team may cause
certain clauses of the university policy to apply with regards to IP and revenue sharing with the
university, and these would need to be identified prior to the business being worked on in the
class or program.
In addition, as discussed in the hands-off approach, getting students to sign
confidentiality clauses or including such in the syllabus may give students a false sense of
security or put the instructor or mentor in a difficult situation if a student seeks for it to be
enforced. As noted, the legality of such documentation has not yet been tested, and the legal
implications to the school are thus not fully understood.
Finally, dynamic equity splits are difficult to master and tedious to track, and because
these are students who typically have relatively little work experience or business knowledge – it
is challenging for them to establish what constitutes good value to a startup. Education and
mentoring cannot completely mitigate the biases and naïvety they may bring to the discussions,
possibly resulting in unbalanced weighting of contributions.
Evolving Approach Conclusion
This semi-structured approach allows students to join an existing idea if their goal is to
learn the process of entrepreneurship rather than launching their own business. The approach
also enables a student to continue to retain ownership if they bring the idea to the class and prefer
this approach. Dynamic equity splits encourage students to discuss with their teams how they
wish to handle co-ownership through the use of quantitative measures so that equity is not an
“either you’re in or you’re out” approach. This enables teams to move ahead with flexibility and
it addresses shortcomings of a formal equity split, and associated challenges that may arise.
A Structured Approach: Ohio Northern University
Ohio Northern University has developed its entrepreneurship program with the goal of
embedding the entrepreneurial mindset (EM) in all students across campus. EM includes
effective collaboration in a team setting; applying critical and creative thinking to ambiguous
problems; constructing a customer- appropriate value proposition; persisting through and
learning from failure; and effectively managing projects. EM is embedded in all business core
courses and the Principles of Entrepreneurship (POE) course is required for engineering and
pharmacy students with an increasing number of Arts & Science programs.
One of the primary methods of operationalizing these outcomes is ONU’s version of an
elevator pitch competition held each semester. POE and other courses require students to
participate. These teams can choose to submit their product ideas for consideration by the
Business and Engineering colleges to become year-long senior capstone projects and seniors are
encouraged to launch these products to market. POE students approached faculty with regards to
Page 164
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
ownership of the ideas after hearing that several of the senior capstone projects were successfully
launched. Inadvertently, ONU failed to consider ownership of the ideas by the original teams that
developed them. Additionally, clear ownership was not established with the senior teams.
Complicating the matter was the need to negotiate ownership of the business when the
original teams merged with the senior teams, which could be comprised of just engineering
students, just business students, or an interdisciplinary team. This could take a partnership from
the original five student team up to potentially seventeen student teams.
Faculty Concerns
1. The faculty needed to address the following concerns while maintaining EM outcomes:
2. Students needed to understand the legal issues of entrepreneurship without impeding creativity and
innovation that is so vital to the entrepreneurial mindset.
3. Students needed to negotiate issues with others in ambiguous situations where the outcomes are not
black and white and not all negotiations are successful.
4. Students needed to pursue taking their ideas to market knowing that there is a personal risk to the
endeavor and that not all ideas are feasible or successful.
5. Encourage teamwork and communication skills with students within their disciplines as well as across
disciplines.
6. Establish clear lines of ownership for the original teams to protect their ideas while allowing them to
be open to new possible partnerships that might address their team weaknesses.
7. Avoid any legal complications due to public disclosure issues and equity positions among the teams.
There needed to be frank and open discussions about ownership rights and the amount of equity
position in the partnerships based on perceived contributions of the original or new team members.
8. Attempt to keep this as simple as possible given that the faculty members do not have the necessary
legal backgrounds to address the many issues that might occur.
Student Concerns
In the POE sections, students prepare for an elevator pitch competition over a five-week
period. They are required to develop a product idea that is creative, unique, innovative, feasible,
and marketable. The excitement leading up to the competition encourages them to be motivated
and committed to being successful beyond the need for a passing grade. This is particularly
important for the non-Business students who have not considered the opportunities provided by
an entrepreneurial career. Their passion and sense of ownership becomes even more evident as
they work through the process of taking a product to market and it dawns on them that there is
potential for profits while understanding the risks and potential for failure. Discussions within
the team move from “Is the idea creative, unique, innovative, feasible, and marketable?” to
“How do we protect our assets?” They express concern about how much to pitch—whether they
want to submit their idea for consideration as a senior capstone project or maintain it solely as
their own. They inevitably move from perceiving this event as a mere class assignment to the
true entrepreneurial potential it can become for them.
Handling Ownership and Disclosure
Given all of the concerns, ONU developed a non-disclosure form and a simple one-page
ownership equity form (OEF). The non-disclosure form is employed only during the elevator
pitch competition and signed by the judges. The form provides protection for the students’
Page 165
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
product ideas from basic public disclosure issues. It is explained to the judges that students may
be taking their ideas to market and request that they do not ask questions that may impede
patentability.
Leading up to the competition, IP and public disclosure issues are discussed with students
in class. As teams, they explore the US Patent Office web site for prior art and complete internet
searches to ensure that their idea is sufficiently unique from similar products to patent.
Additionally, students are coached by faculty not to disclose any specifics that may impede
patentability with other students or with the judges during the competition. While they are
encouraged to produce prototypes, ONU discourages the use of CAD drawings or other detailed
material, discussing the impact of this decision on their ability to patent their ideas.
The OEF was developed by a POE faculty who is a practicing attorney in the state of
Ohio. Currently, it is only used in the POE course sections. It is very basic and written so that
students understand what they are signing. The form consists of two options: Option 1 allows
students to maintain all ownership rights to the product idea; and Option 2 allows students to
relinquish all ownership rights. It is assumed that ownership is divided equitably among each
team member unless agreed upon by the team differently.
Each team member is required to sign the form either maintaining or relinquishing their
ownership rights. The form is distributed to the teams during class following a discussion on
business formats, including what should be included in partnership agreements and basic articles
of incorporation. Students are given time in class to negotiate with their team members about
who wants to maintain or relinquish ownership, and, in some instances, they will negotiate
equity positions. Recognizing that many of our students may not understand the ramifications of
signing the form, we give the students additional time so that they may discuss the options with
their parents/guardians.
If product ideas are considered for senior capstone projects, then the senior teams enter
into negotiations with the original team that chose Option 1. The teams have two choices: one,
negotiate a new partnership agreement with new equity positions established; or two, the senior
teams can simply be considered as consultants. Negotiation for reimbursement of services if the
original team takes the product to market then becomes necessary. It is also understood that not
all students in the competition are interested in pursuing their ideas to market for any number of
reasons and choose Option 2. However, some of these ideas are marketable and could still be
considered for senior capstone projects. Option 2 allows the senior teams to pursue these
opportunities unimpeded and under no obligation to the original team members.
Drawbacks
As noted before, one of the challenges with legal documents in a classroom or academic
environment relating to co-ownership (including IP protection) issues is that they have not been
tested in the courts. To what extent such documents would hold up, the university might be held
liable, or the extent of language that must be provided is uncertain. That being said, the
documents for ONU follow the structure of documents that would be provided to any person
looking to start a business, so it seems reasonable to expect that the documents would be
accepted in court.
Page 166
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
At ONU, students are offered the option to decide whether they will retain or relinquish
all ownership rights of their idea at the end of the POE class. Extrapolating this larger, structured
approach encourages students to make the determination to what extent they wish to remain
involved in the future of their business. However, students may not be equipped to handle such a
decision at that point depending on their own personal process for making big decisions and
whether or not they truly understand what they are being asked to decide. Even knowing that this
decision is coming and given a week to consider the document, some students may feel rushed in
their decision. Others may not like the binary states, instead preferring to have the option to
leave, stay, or re-join the business later at their choosing.
Structured Approach Conclusion
Since instituting the use of the forms, ONU has not had any issues, but the form is
untested and is continuing to be update to address new issues as they arise. Faculty appreciate the
clear guidance, and many student teams are satisfied with the level of IP protection and clarity
relating to co-ownership of the business that the forms provide. By treating the student teams
essentially like newly forming businesses right from the start, ONU creates a professional
environment and immerses them in the decisions businesses face. This comes at the expense of
flexibility for the students and teams—decisions need to be made when the documents are
offered to ensure that all teams are covered by the policy.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN BUILDING OR REFINING A UNIVERSITY POLICY
Each approach is different and comprehensive, and a person or group looking to
implement or change their current co-ownership policy may be uncertain where to start when
seeking to change their own university, program, or class’s policy. Below, we outline the process
all three schools used to change or create the policies discussed above.
At the university level, you first need to determine whether your university has a policy
and whether students and faculty know about it. If there is a policy already in place, it needs to
be actively disseminated to the students, faculty, and staff. Changes may be made after people
are aware of the full extent of the policy as understanding the baseline is key to ensuring that any
modifications are consistent with an approach fostering entrepreneurship, protecting the
university, faculty, staff, and students, and staying true to Federal law. If there isn’t a policy, all
relevant stakeholders should discuss whether a policy should be developed at the university level
and what it should cover. This process should then be repeated for increasingly smaller groups,
such as for a School of Business, a major, and programs within the major. It is possible that
several levels will not have a policy. At Quinnipiac, for example, there is little policy at the
university level and none at the school or program level. The policy is currently applied
throughout the major and is being considered for raising it up to the university level.
Once a policy (or policies) is in place, each class’s syllabus should reflect the policy and
direct students to where the policy can be found. If the language is dense or beyond the scope of
the students’ current understanding, class time or materials need to be made available to help the
students understand the policy. Students should be notified what the classroom policy is prior to
having to disclose any information about their ideas and before any teams are formed. Instructors
Page 167
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
should consider how they wish to handle non-disclosure agreements, if at all, if such are not
covered in the policy.
As a result of the policy, students should have a default process or state for their business.
That is, the policy should not leave students in a void. At ONU and California State University,
Chico, this is accomplished through the documents the students develop and sign. At Quinnipiac
University, there is a blanket policy that clearly identifies students’ relationships to their
businesses in the event that the students do not create some other document. Thus, for any given
group of students, students should negotiate a team contract or accept the default policy of the
class. Prior to choosing an approach, they need to discuss how to handle under-, non-, and over-
performers; equity ownership; and patent, trademark, and copyright ownership. Mentoring and
class lessons can be provided to help facilitate this process.
CONCLUSION
Students gain academic value from collaborating with others in experiential learning
activities in the classroom and extracurricular activities that may or may not create future
intellectual property, such as patentable products (Herrington, 2010). But as discussed, it is
important that students, faculty, staff, and the administration at universities have a clear
understanding of the potential pitfalls. “When all parties to collaborative interactions are aware
of the legal implications of their choices and make decisions that are consistent with the
outcomes they desire, collaborative work can be beneficial to all” (Herrington, 2010, 49).
We have discussed here three different approaches: a hands-off approach that leaves the
responsibility for ownership and IP protection in the hands of the students; an evolving approach
that continually attempts to adapt to the co-ownership needs of its student teams; and a more
structured approach with clear guidelines about establishing ownership of business ideas. All
three approaches include education about ownership and IP protection issues, and all three allow
students to make informed decisions about these topics. In addition, each approach also
incorporates students receiving expert legal advice, through encouraging them to seek it out,
through having such experts provide input into the design of the program, or both.
So far, none of the three approaches has been tested in a court of law, and indeed, that
may very well be a sign that they are effective. Each approach attempts to prevent students from
reaching the point where they feel that pursuing a lawsuit is the best (or only) option regarding
their business idea. This is relatively uncharted territory since no major lawsuits have been filed
against a school yet. However, the key word there is “yet”; with the growth of entrepreneurship
programs across the country, there will come a time when such issues will arise. A school
unprepared for that day may very well find itself implementing a set of policies that could quash
the innovativeness and openness needed for a robust entrepreneurial community in its school.
The goal of this paper is to begin a larger discussion of handling the legal side of
entrepreneurship at all schools, allowing educators to create the best experiences for students and
faculty alike.
Page 168
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
REFERENCES
Herrington, T. 2010. Student rights in their intellectual products. Intellectual property on campus: Students’ rights
and responsibilities. Southern Illinois University Press.
Herrington, T. 2010. Legal effects of student collaborative efforts. Intellectual property on campus: Students’ rights
and responsibilities. Southern Illinois University Press.
Litton, J., Patterson, R., & Little, A. (2014). Business organization legal issues arising from ideas generated by
university students. Southern Law Journal. Fall2014; 24(2)267-280.
Luppino, A. 2009. Fixing A Hole: Eliminating Ownership Uncertainties To Facilitate University Generated
Innovation, 78 UMKCLR 367
Luppino, A. 2012. Some Approaches to Clarifying Ownership Issues for Student Inventors & Student Entrepreneurs.
Workshop presented at the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, January 2012.
Moyer, Mike, 2012. Slicing Pie: Funding Your Company Without Funds. Version 2.3. Kindle Edition. Retrieved
from Amazon.
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Uniform Partnership Act (1997). Copy right 1994,
1996, 1997 by National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
Siegel, D.S. & Phan, P. 2005. ‘Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implication for
entrepreneurship education’, in Liebcap, G (Ed.), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, Innovation, and
Economic Growth, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science/JAI Press, pp. 1-38.
Silva, A., Henriques, E., & Caevalho, A. (2009). Creativity enhancement in a product development course through
entrepreneurship learning and intellectual property awareness. European Journal of Engineering Education,
34(1), 63-75.
doc_694236498.pdf