Description
In this detailed explanation concerning new venture based learning an experiential pedagogy for high growth entrepreneurship.
Queen’s University Management School Working Paper Series
Working paper No: MS_WPS_MAN_09_1
Title: New Venture Based Learning - An Experiential Pedagogy
for High-Growth Entrepreneurship
Author(s):
David Gibson
Dr Jonathan M. Scott
Aisling Harkin
(all at Queen’s University Management School)
Date: February 2009
1
New Venture Based Learning - An Experiential Pedagogy
for High-Growth Entrepreneurship
We describe how enterprise educators can facilitate more effective entrepreneurial learning
for students while they are concurrently in the process of starting a new venture, hence enhancing
its growth potential. We demonstrate why our uber-experiential New Venture Based Learning
approach is the most effective pedagogy to impact upon individuals’ motivation – and their ability –
to enhance their entrepreneurial knowledge and, ultimately, the subsequent performance and
growth of their new venture. We conclude the paper with a summary and some practical
recommendations for the implementation of this experiential pedagogy for high-growth
entrepreneurship.
Introduction
This paper presents the practical and theoretical rationale for the development of a new
pedagogical model of New Venture Based Learning (NVBL). The paper thus seeks to answer the
following research question: Can enterprise
1
educators more effectively facilitate entrepreneurial
learning for students while they are in the process of starting a new venture, rather than in a ‘pre-
start’ educational intervention? The authors are currently developing a new-venture-based-learning
MSc in New Venture Creation, as well as undertaking research into this model in the Nordic
context (Scott et al, 2009). This paper, therefore, addresses the research question by building theory
(a pedagogical model), with enterprise education as the dependent variable and student-
entrepreneurs as the unit of analysis.
Work-based learning has evidently been successful in promoting employability and
enterprising behaviours at UK higher education institutions (Moreland, 2005; Little, 2006;
Nixon et
al, 2006). This approach has primarily been aimed at Undergraduate programmes, in which there is
an element of work experience or an employer placement. However, this is usually geared towards
students working in other businesses rather than their own, and learning from external mentors and
internal managers. Two exceptions to this rule follow. The first is the BA Enterprise Development
at the University of Huddersfield which will be running for the first time in September 2009. In this
1
In this paper we use the terms “new venture creation”, “enterprise” and “entrepreneurship” interchangeably to refer to both the
process of creating and growing a new venture, and to the specific set of skills and competences required to do so successfully.
Entrepreneurial learning is: “an experiential process where enterprising individuals continuously develop their entrepreneurial
knowledge throughout their professional lives” (Politis, 2008: 45).
2
programme, students screen opportunities in the first year, plan and start up their new venture in the
second, and run the venture in their third year. Secondly, the Student Placements for Entrepreneurs
in Education (SPEED) programme run from the University of Wolverhampton which provides
enterprise placements for Undergraduates, with mentoring and financial support, so that students
can start their own business, rather than working for someone else. Another example, which we
discuss later in the paper, is the one-year Foundation for Management Experience (FME)
programme for first year students that Babson College runs (Neck and Stoddard, 2006) which
“was created in 1996 to give all first year, undergraduate students an integrated view of business management
…. The focus of FME is on opportunity recognition, resource parsimony, team development, holistic thinking
and value creation through harvest. The vehicle of learning is a limited duration business start up steeped in
entrepreneurial thinking and a basic understanding of all functions of business. Because FME is a required
course, all first year undergraduates experience the entire cycle of entrepreneurship. The course is a blend of
theory and practice, which forms the basis for the entire Babson undergraduate core curriculum.
“A total of 13 faculty with core expertise in information technology, entrepreneurship, management,
marketing, accounting, and finance are involved in teaching, coordinating and running the course …. Each
business team receives an initial loan up to $3000 from the College to launch and run their business which is
organized like a company with a CEO and different departments managed by vice presidents. In May, all
profits are donated to a community service organization chosen by the students in each business. In addition to
the donation of money, each student is required to give six hours of their time working with their chosen
community service organization
“Since its inception FME businesses have evolved from selling cookies on campus to negotiating contracts
with suppliers in China. Average revenue and profit for FME businesses are $5,500 and $2,000 respectively;
however, businesses have earned as much as $30,500 in revenue and $18,000 in profit in a 12 week period.
Most importantly, the FME businesses are able to make a significant impact on their local communities ….
Since 1999, 2,520 FME students have donated to $218,263 and more than 15,000 hours of their time to
community service organizations.” (Neck and Stoddard, 2006, pp. 1-2; p. 6)
Our New Venture Based Learning model can, therefore, enable established learning models –
such as Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle – and more recent conceptual developments (e.g. Politis’s
(2008) process model of entrepreneurial learning) to be applied to two combined and concurrent
processes of enterprise education and new venture creation by developing students’ enterprise skills
while they are concurrently creating a new venture. Henry et al (2003) reviewed different
approaches to delivering enterprise education programmes; discussed whether or not enterprise can
be taught (see also Henry et al, 2005a, b); and highlighted the importance of measuring the
effectiveness of such pedagogic interventions. They discuss of J amieson’s categorisation of:
3
• “education about enterprise: awareness creation ... educating students on the various aspects of setting up and
running a business mostly from a theoretical perspective.
• “education for enterprise: the preparation of aspiring entrepreneurs for a career in self-employment with the
specific objective of encouraging participants to set-up and run their own business.
• “and education in enterprise: management training for established entrepreneurs and focuses on ensuring the
growth and future development of the business.” (Henry et al, 2003: 92-93).
The New Venture Based Learning pedagogical model, however, proposes developing a
Masters-level programme that sits somewhere between “education for enterprise” and “education in
enterprise.” As such, it would provide entrepreneurial learning and mentoring for people
concurrently starting up a new venture and there will be active engagement between the student, the
tutors and the mentors to ensure optimal entrepreneurial strategising and implementation of the
business plan for the new venture. In starting a new venture, the entrepreneur bears risks (Knight,
1921) by discovering and exploiting opportunities (Kirzner, 1997), has a high need for achievement
(McClelland, 1961) and perhaps even, through dynamism and sustainable competitive advantage,
leads to creative destruction, ultimately causing established players to fail (Schumpeter, 1934). For
some time, there has been interest in new venture creation and the enterprise culture in the UK and,
in particular, the role of Government in promoting business start-up (Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office, 1971; Storey, 1994; Greene et al, 2008). It has, however, been suggested that Government-
backed business support has been suboptimal (National Audit Office, 2006; Richard et al, 2007).
While Bennett (2008) queries its value for money, Richard (2008: 5), who is himself one of the
Dragons of the BBC’s Dragons Den, proposes the replacement of the current bureaucratic
architecture with ‘a single, web-based Business Information Service.’ Indeed, the bard of
entrepreneurial research, Gartner (2008), notes:
“Hey! What about the U.K.? (Blackburn & Smallbone, 2008)
“Small is beautiful” is not just a matter of testament, (Schumacher, 1974)
Small firms help an economy be resilient.
Birch’s study on small firms was an astonishment (Birch, 1979)
That job growth was an important argument,
For SME research to become more pertinent.
The Bolton report points out the predicament
That new and small firms have not been salient
In the discussion of making the U.K. more affluent.
Much of U.K. research appears to be driven,
By how much the national government has given,
So that spurring evidence-based policy’s development,
U.K. research explores whether government choices are relevant.”
4
Whilst there is evidence that business support from the UK Government-run Business Link
can contribute to firm growth (Mole et al, 2008), owner-managers are more likely to trust
accountants and solicitors than public-sector business support organisations (Bennett and Robson,
2004; Scott and Irwin, 2009). Moreover, the role of trust is important in that effective business
advice and mentoring – generally, from private sector sources such as accountants – is key to
business survival and growth (Deakins et al, 1998; Gartner et al, 1999). Not having access to
external advice from experienced advisers or mentors – to help them make the correct decisions – is
a significant barrier for nascent small firms (British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), 2008).
Furthermore, formal ‘pre-start’ business planning can improve business survival rates
(Castrogiovanni, 1996). Hence, for owner-managers and potential entrepreneurs, social capital and
networks (Anderson et al., 2007; Casson and Della Giusta, 2007; Greve and Salaff, 2003), mentors
and advisors that they trust (Welter and Smallbone, 2007) are highly important in ensuring the
growth and survival of their new ventures. In terms of the theoretical context to small firm growth,
Gibrat (1931) found that a firm’s size and its rate of growth were not mutually influential, i.e. there
was no significant relationship, and indeed this law has been reinforced by other studies. Greiner’s
(1972) model emphasised five stages of business growth, each triggered by a crisis: creativity;
direction; delegation; co-ordination and collaboration. Other research supports the importance of
stage models of SME growth (Churchill and Lewis, 1987; McMahon, 1998; Morgan and Roberts,
1997). An alternative approach, however, was suggested by Macpherson (2005) who considered:
“how the case companies managed transition and innovation in organizational systems in order to resolve
specific crises and facilitate growth … [R]ather than sequential crises, these firms were dealing with a number
of crises concurrently, and solutions were significantly dependent on existing experience and systems of
organising, managers’ perception of the crises, and access to relevant knowledge.”
Macpherson’s analysis leads on to the main argument of this paper in which we propose our
model by considering how entrepreneurial knowledge is generated, through ‘existing experience’
and social networks (‘access to relevant knowledge’, as he suggests).
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 critiques existing provision of
Masters level enterprise education and identifies what is wrong with current pedagogical
approaches to enterprise education. Section 3 focuses more specifically on how New Venture Based
Learning marries the teaching and learning processes together in the form of our pedagogical
model, building on existing research into enterprise education, entrepreneurial learning, and the
effectiveness of both the learning and teaching processes. Finally, Section 4 provides a summary of
our principal arguments, as well as some practical and pedagogical recommendations for how this
model can (and will) be implemented.
5
Existing Enterprise Education: For ‘Thinkers’, Not ‘Doers’
Higher education institutions (HEIs) are another important source of advice and support for
those considering starting a new venture. HEI enterprise education – and, in particular, pedagogical
approaches – has been the subject of considerable interest by academics and amongst the reviews of
the subject are a number of significant contributions (for example, Dainow, 1986; Scott and
Twomey, 1988; Plaschka and Welsch, 1990; Solomon et al, 1994; Gorman et al, 1997; Kolvereid
and Moen, 1997; Vesper and Gartner, 1997; Leitch and Harrison, 1999; Laukkanen, 2000; Hannon
et al, 2004; Hytti ja Kuopusjärvi, 2004; Béchard and Grégoire, 2005; Henry et al 2005a, b; Akola
and Heinonen, 2006; Hannon, 2006; Hannon et al, 2006; Van Auken et al, 2006; Botham and
Mason, 2007; Bridge and McGowan, 2007; Hannon, 2007; Pittaway and Cope, 2007a,b; Smith,
2007; European Commission, 2008; Herrmann et al, 2008; Hussain et al, 2008; Scott and Hussain,
2008; Pittaway et al, 2009). So what exactly is wrong with existing Masters level enterprise
education provision in the UK and, by implication, much of the Undergraduate enterprise
education?
An analysis of the outlines of Masters level enterprise education courses in the UK (Gibson
et al, 2009) found that these programmes tend to cover functional areas such as marketing,
innovation, finance, as well as risk management and resource management (Queen’s University
Belfast, 2009). In addition, such courses are full-time, 12 months, of which 9 months are taught and
3 months of dissertation preparation, normally a business plan (ibid). The methods of delivery
include lectures, discussion groups, individual and group practical exercises, case studies, and
business simulation (ibid). A key point emerging from the analysis is that almost all courses are
couched in the language of “pre-start”, “thinking of starting a business”, “planning to start up”, with
the exception of Queen Margaret University (Edinburgh)’s MBA Entrepreneurship, which does
refer to the possibility of people who run their own business enrolling on the course. However, none
of these MSc/MBA courses is tailored to those who are in the process of running a nascent, new
venture – they are largely geared towards “preparation” or imbuing students with “entrepreneurial”
skills to start up a business. Several programmes have a specific focus upon international, strategic
or technology entrepreneurship. They are predominantly theoretical and dissertation based and,
indeed, one (Master of Enterprise (MEnt) at The University of Manchester) is research-based. Most
of these programmes are clearly aimed at – using the language of the Household Survey of
Entrepreneurship (NOP, 2004) – “thinkers” (those thinking of starting a business), not “doers”
(those who actually are doing so).
However, two examples of good practice are the MSc Entrepreneurship and MSc Social
Enterprise offered by the University of Huddersfield. These programmes provide a healthy balance
of practice and theory, along with sensible learning and teaching methods, including case studies,
6
guest lectures by entrepreneurs and, perhaps most importantly, they are delivered largely by
Business School staff (i.e. practitioners with business experience). The provision of enterprise
education in England has been mapped (Hannon et al, 2006) and good practice in the area has been
extensively documented (Botham and Mason, 2007). A major concern that has emerged is whether
existing enterprise education is ‘effective’ (Henry et al, 2003) and the importance of providing solid
‘entrepreneurial outcomes’ (Hannon, 2007; Pittaway and Cope, 2007b; Pittaway and Hannon,
2008). Whilst many of the above studies have examined how universities have approached
enterprise education and its pedagogies, Laukkanen (2000) has advocated that HEIs adopt an
explicit strategy of business generation. In this regard, Herrmann et al (2008: 7) proposed that:
“Developing entrepreneurial teaching and learning practices demands a shift from transmission models of
teaching (learning ‘about’) to experiential learning (learning ‘for’) and offers students techniques that can be
applied in the real world. Our report calls for learning approaches that incorporate practical examples from
outside the university into the classroom, and offer reflective practice, ownership and opportunity to students
.… A project or practice-based learning process, rather than one that is theoretical, makes learning relevant to a
range of applications …. Immersion in practice places the practitioner at the centre of the learning experience.
The use of drama and performance techniques is an essential part of the entrepreneurial learning process as
many entrepreneurs are continually ‘acting’ and ‘performing’ in their many roles.” (Herrmann et al, 2008: 21)
These suggestions have clear implications for the delivery of effective enterprise education
with solid entrepreneurial outcomes (Henry et al, 2003; Hannon, 2007; Pittaway and Cope, 2007b;
Pittaway and Hannon, 2007). It appears, based on our analysis above, that most UK Masters level
enterprise education provision is s simply not practice-based enough in order to provide the
entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial outcomes that are required, and that they are simply not
effective pedagogical approaches – furthermore, they are overly oriented towards ‘thinkers’ (who
may not even start a business) rather than ‘doers’. Given the nature of graduate enterprises (Rosa,
2003; Mason et al, 2007) and the deficiencies of much enterprise education provision, it is perhaps
not surprising that the graduate-run ventures are “hardly likely to make the J apanese tremble”
(Rosa, 2003). What if, as Akola and Heinonen (2006: 16) suggest, “Different assignments (e.g.,
working on a business idea or a plan) do not support learning if they are not embedded in a real-life
situation, and are easily considered artificial and useless”? We now explore the process and
outcomes of entrepreneurial learning and develop our pedagogical model of New Venture Based
Learning.
7
New Venture Based Learning: An Experiential Pedagogy
Entrepreneurial learning can be conceptualised as a complex transformative process in
which career experience is converted into entrepreneurial knowledge (Politis, 2008). While
traditionally the process of entrepreneurial learning has (with organizational learning) been
conceptualised as operating within the context of learning in an existing business or new venture
(Leitch and Harrison, 2008), we argue that effective entrepreneurial learning can also occur within a
university context where a student is involved concurrently in creating a new venture. Indeed, it is
clear that the entrepreneur’s ‘personal development’ should be a central consideration when
designing enterprise education programmes (Rae and Carswell, 2000). But surely the most effective
means of enhancing entrepreneurial learning is while an individual is actually in the process of
creating and growing a new venture? As we discussed earlier, whilst formal ‘pre-start’ business
planning can improve business survival rates (Castrogiovanni, 1996), the key pressure points at
which mentors and advisers can contribute to optimal growth and survival of a small firm is by
providing the advice and mentoring while the business is operating, not before (Deakins et al, 1998;
Gartner et al, 1999; BCC, 2008), and mentoring and coaching can enhance enterprise education
effectiveness (Fleischmann, 2008). Hence, drawing upon David Birch’s statement that “If you want
to encourage entrepreneurship, it should be through some kind of apprenticeship” (Aronsson, 2004:
289), Hindle (2007) suggests that universities could offer such an apprenticeship and, indeed, asks:
“Is the culture of the business school an immutable constant, or could business schools be induced
to adapt and diversify their educational approaches to suit different subject matter and different
student needs using different approaches than those that currently prevail?”
We agree with the approach of both Birch and Hindle in that student/entrepreneurs can more
effectively learn how to be better owner-managers in a real-world business environment. Although
case studies, business simulations, and other forms of experiential or reflective learning can
enhance entrepreneurial learning, only a genuine ‘apprenticeship’ can provide optimal
entrepreneurial learning. Before we consider some of the different forms of experiential and
reflective pedagogies, we first examine the field of entrepreneurial learning.
2
Much of this literature
has been influenced by Kolb’s experiential learning model (Kolb, 1984) in which people learn in
cycles and through a process of reflection and review (e.g. J ones-Evans et al, 2000; Cope and
Watts, 2000; Pittaway and Cope, 2007; and Politis, 2008).
2
Given the paucity of literature on entrepreneurial learning, we are grateful for the Harrison and Leitch (2008) volume, which has
provided key insights into this field.
8
A number of key themes in entrepreneurial learning can be highlighted, such as problem-
solving, learning from the expertise of others, experiential learning, endogenous versus exogenous
learning [or inter- versus intra-organisational learning (Leitch and Harrison, 2008: 10-16)],
absorptive capacity, and knowledge transfer from large organisations through supply chains etc
(Easterby-Smith, 2008). Indeed, Easterby-Smith (2008, p. xxi) flags up several key current debates,
such as:
• “Measurable links between learning processes and organisational performance”;
• “The process view”: “how groups and teams learn over time” and “communities of
practice”; and
• “creativity and innovation.”
It is all three of these debates that our paper makes a contribution to, in particular in relation
to how learning processes through enterprise education can enhance the performance of the new
venture which a student is creating, and the role of creativity and innovation. Our argument is
simple, in that through real-life experiential learning / new venture based learning (i.e. the process
of starting a new venture), the student/entrepreneur can enhance his or her prospects of being more
successful, and growing the firm (or at least surviving in its early years as it seeks stability). It is
quite clear that we can contribute to the entrepreneurial learning process as it applies to creativity
and innovation, at which high-technology, high-growth ventures ought to be particularly effective.
Such an experiential approach would also be of benefit to mid-career entrepreneurs, with their
different learning styles (Rae, 2005).
Linking back to the key themes that Easterby-Smith highlighted, we also seek to contribute
both to entrepreneurial learning in the new venture’s ‘internal processes’ (endogenous) and ‘outside
the boundaries’ of the firm (exogenous). The former relates to how our student/entrepreneurs learn
from the process of starting their own firm, in terms of what goes on inside this new business. And
the latter to how they can learn from others – clearly, this might include not only lecturers and
mentors/coaches, but also other individuals and stakeholders that they encounter (customers,
suppliers, potential financiers (e.g. business angels), and even competitors). The role of social
capital and networking cannot, therefore, be overestimated.
Leitch and Harrison (2008) review the agenda for research in entrepreneurial learning.
Whilst they highlight that organisational learning research is “burgeoning” (p3), there is little
research into entrepreneurial learning, and they make a most valid point in that, “progress in
research on entrepreneurial learning will be achieved better through a robust focus on context-of-
application-based problems than attempts to develop grandiose integrative theories within a single
9
powerful paradigm” (ibid, p. 5). Our model of New Venture Based Learning does not seek in any
way to be a “grandiose integrative theor[y]” (ibid, p. 5), but rather is very much a practice-based,
experiential model of entrepreneurial learning in the context of an individual who starts up their
own new venture (as an entrepreneur), whilst also participating in an uber-experiential Masters
programme which aims to enhance the effectiveness of their entrepreneurial learning to contribute
to the successful future performance of their venture. Indeed, Leitch and Harrison (2008: 4), in
summarising the work of Eliasson (1996, 1998), suggest that entrepreneurs must learn in order to
build their capacity in a number of key competences – “awareness, resource acquisition, and
management” – to “create (innovation), recognize (risk capital provision, diffuse (spillovers) and
successfully exploit (receiver competence)”. It is abundantly clear that such key competences are
central to any entrepreneur who is ‘learning by doing’. Entrepreneurial learning can be ‘enhanced
through peripheral vision’, which is “a cultivated disposition for attending to the hidden, the
obscured and overlooked”, which “can be systematically cultivated through education strategies that
deliberately direct attention away from the visible gestalt figures of comprehension to the unformed
and the seemingly invisible background against which figure, identity and meaning emerge”, or a
“negative pedagogy” (Chia, 2008, p. 27).
Politis (2008, p. 44-45) makes a clear distinction between entrepreneurial knowledge, and
the experiential learning that creates such knowledge, and indeed, highlights, a lack of research on
“how entrepreneurs experience, through experience, develop entrepreneurial knowledge that
enables them to recognize and act on entrepreneurial opportunities and to organize and manage new
ventures.” While Politis (2008) is inevitably (as are we) influenced by Kolb (1984)’s model of
reflective learning and ‘experiential acquired knowledge’ – indeed, many of us are thus members of
the Kolbian school of thought – she does make it clear that,
“attempts to stimulate entrepreneurial activities through formal training and education is not likely to have an
strong and direct impact on the development of entrepreneurial knowledge … [but] should primarily focus on
developing creativity, critical thinking and reflection among individuals, which in turn can have a profound
influence on both their motivation and ability to develop entrepreneurial knowledge throughout their
professional lives” (Politis, 2008, p. 65).
Whilst it is beyond the scope of this paper to explain in detail Politis’s model (Politis, 2008),
it is nonetheless a most useful conceptualisation of the ‘dynamic’ process of entrepreneurial
learning, “an experiential process where enterprising individuals continuously develop their
entrepreneurial knowledge throughout their professional lives” (Politis, 2008, p. 45). In this process,
Politis (2008) highlights the importance of entrepreneurial knowledge itself (recognising
opportunities in a Kirznerian sense (e.g. Kirzner, 1997), but also ‘coping with the liabilities of
10
newness, i.e. risk (Knight, 1921)), career experience (which is about ‘learning by doing’ whether it
is prior new venture creation experience, management or sectoral experience), as well as a number
of key “factors influencing the transformation process.”
Whilst Politis’s (2008) model is highly informative, and indeed is Kolb’s (1984) seminal
reflective learning model, what we have developed is a model which brings together the process of
entrepreneurial learning (e.g. Politis, 2008), reflective learning (Kolb, 1984), in parallel with an
individual creating a new venture whilst also participating in a Masters level programme. New
Venture Based Learning is, therefore, about the entrepreneurial learning process (Politis, 2008), not
just via an ’exogenous’ source (Easterby-Smith, 2008) (via tutors and mentors) but also through
‘endogenous’ learning (ibid) as student-entrepreneurs engage in reflective learning (Kolb, 1984) on
their new venture in the learning environment of a university. New Venture Based Learning is,
therefore, a form of entrepreneurial learning which provides a symbiotic relationship between
endogenous and exogenous sources of entrepreneurial knowledge, experience, or the
entrepreneurial process itself. Thus, we distinguish ‘pedagogic’ (through the classroom)
entrepreneurial learning from new venture based – through actually starting and running a new
venture – entrepreneurial learning. It is also possible to conceptualise ‘pedagogic’ entrepreneurial
learning as essentially enhancing the Bourdieuan ‘institutionalised cultural capital’ (i.e. education)
of the entrepreneur (Bourdieu, 1986; Elam 2008), whilst the ‘social capital’ based entrepreneurial
learning operates through exogenous networking with individuals from outside the firm. A third
form is straightforward ‘cultural capital’ based entrepreneurial learning (cultural capital
encompassing ideas and experience), where the entrepreneur learns from his or her own experience
(as Politis, 2008, theorises).
Essentially, as Bourdieu considered the forms of capital as bridging a nexus between society
(social, material, cultural aspects), on the one hand, and the individual (economic, social, cultural
and symbolic capital
3
), on the other, (Bourdieu, 1986; Elam, 2008), then our fusing of
entrepreneurial learning and the forms of capital goes a long way to explaining how this process can
influence an individual entrepreneur’s Bourdieuan capital reserves. There is also convertibility,
according to Bourdieu, where economic capital buys cultural capital such as education (Elam,
2008).
That gives weight to the notion that entrepreneurial learning (as with learning per se) is a
“socio-cultural practice rather than an individual cognitive activity” (McHenry, 2008: 76), and:
“the social-cultural perspective of learning differs from the individualist approach as it emphasises that human
beings are social, interactive individuals and that learning is embedded in practice” (ibid, p. 80).
3
This is a little more esoteric but essentially Elam (2008) explains it as, “legitimacy, social approval, prestige, status, symbolic
power”, which in itself can lead to “structured social action.”
11
Therefore, interaction and practice-embedded learning (McHenry, 2008) in the process of
entrepreneurial learning (Politis, 2008) are central to how New Venture Based Learning can be
operationalised. Traditionally, university programmes in entrepreneurship and small business are
simply too focused on “pre-start” to enable effective entrepreneurial learning. Indeed, as Akola and
Heinonen (2006) suggest, such educational approaches may be “artificial” and, in some cases,
“useless” or, as Hindle (2007), following Birch, argues, there is, instead, a need for entrepreneurial
apprenticeships. We would argue that any such Masters programmes should not be called
“Entrepreneurship” or “New Venture Creation”, but rather “Business Planning”. As important as
pre-start business planning is to the survival of the new venture (Castrogiovanni, 1996), we reiterate
that advice and mentoring is effective to the actual operation of the business (Deakins et al, 1998;
Gartner et al, 1999; BCC, 2008). And, since one should match the type of assessment to learning
outcomes (Pittaway et al, 2009), assessment in NVBL is, necessarily, intimately connected to
implementing the new venture.
The three broad approaches to enterprise education – i.e. (i) lectures, (ii) experiential
learning through role play/drama and simulation & gaming, and (iii) running a genuine business –
vary in the degree to which they are experiential, reflective and, therefore, effective for promoting
entrepreneurial learning. It is not only the two UK examples we outlined earlier that involve
students starting a real life business. Fisher et al (2008: 313) remind us that Babson College
“require students to start up and run actual businesses”, which are closed down at the end of the
course. In a sense then, these are disposable businesses.
Indeed, Fisher et al (2008: 315) also evaluate two Undergraduate classes at what they term,
“the far end of the experiential spectrum”, where “students start and run actual businesses, and
receive funds from and report to real investors”. Hence, we have developed Figure 1, to illustrate
this “experiential spectrum” to which Fisher et al are implicitly referring. In other words, we can do
the lectures, which can become slightly more interactive, particularly by including cases. But these
still are “not likely to have a strong and direct impact on the development of entrepreneurial
knowledge” (Politis, 2008: 65).
However, moving rightwards, towards the uber-experiential, role plays/drama and
simulation and gaming do start to provide the “creativity, critical thinking and reflection among
individuals”, which Politis (2008: 65) argues will then “have a profound influence on both their
motivation and ability to develop entrepreneurial knowledge throughout their professional lives,”
Finally, New Venture Based Learning is bound to have even more significant impacts upon
individuals’ motivation – and their ability – to enhance their entrepreneurial knowledge (Fisher et
al, 2008; Politis, 2008).
12
Figure 1: The Spectrum of Experiential Entrepreneurial Learning in Enterprise Education:
From Lectures to New Venture Based Learning
Non-experiential Uber-experiential (Real
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 life)
Teaching: Lectures Case Role Simulation Disposable New Venture
Studies Play/Drama & Gaming* Firms** Creation
Assessment: Assignments Reflection Mentoring
Enterprise
Education only ?
(pre-start)
===============================================================================
New Venture
Based Learning
( EE + NVC)
===============================================================================
New Venture
Creation only
* networking, business games, etc
** real firms that are started up (e.g. at Babson) but are closed down at the end of the course.
Source: developed by authors (after Fisher et al, 2008)
A learning-by-doing, reflective, and experiential approach is clearly so much more
appropriate (Cope and Watts, 2000; Cope, 2005), while maintaining academic and pedagogical
rigour, i.e. students should be able to apply enterprise theory, research findings, and practice to
starting their new venture (Fiet, 2001a, 2001b). Contemporary enterprise education does, therefore,
go as far as highly experiential simulation and gaming. In most cases, this stops at simulation and
gaming; in others, such as at Babson College, real firms are started but these are disposable
because, in essence, they are not owned by the students and when they are closed down any surplus
is donated to charity. Such philanthropy clearly has benefits for the charities concerned. On the
other hand, starting a genuine new business, which is owned by the student/entrepreneur will
change their behaviour and clearly enhance their entrepreneurial learning. For most universities,
there is a huge chasm between enterprise education and real life new venture creation. New Venture
Based Learning (indicated in bold on Figure 1) attempts to bridge this chasm by offering students
the support and mentoring to start their own business, while receiving enterprise education (and a
Masters level qualification) which is directly relevant to that new venture. It is thus uber-
experiential.
13
Summary and Recommendations
In this paper we have presented the practical and theoretical rationale for the development of
a new pedagogical model of New Venture Based Learning by answering the research question: Can
enterprise educators more effectively facilitate entrepreneurial learning for students while they are
in the process of starting a new venture, rather than in a ‘pre-start’ educational intervention? In so
doing, we have made a number of key contributions to the debate on entrepreneurial learning in the
university context, which we highlight below.
First, it has become clear that much enterprise education provision in the UK (with a few
notable exceptions) is for ‘thinkers’, not doers. Such programmes focus upon “pre-start” and
“thinking of starting a business” and usually require the submission of a business plan. It is plainly
obvious that this process does not mean that students will make the active step of actually starting a
new venture – and, even if they do, there will be no support for them from their former institutions.
Although UK enterprise education has been mapped, good practice has been documented, and the
most effective pedagogical approaches have been articulated, predominantly through the sterling
efforts of the National Council of Graduate Entrepreneurship, notably the prolific Professor Paul
Hannon, and associates (Hannon et al, 2006; Botham and Mason, 2007; Herrmann et al, 2008), we
have highlighted major concerns about the nature of the UK’s Masters level enterprise education
provision. It appears, based on our analysis above, that most UK Masters level enterprise education
provision is simply not practise-based enough in order to provide the entrepreneurial learning,
effective pedagogy and ‘entrepreneurial outcomes’ (Henry et al, 2003; Hannon, 2007; Pittaway and
Cope, 2007b; Pittaway and Hannon, 2008) that are required.
Second, drawing upon the entrepreneurial learning and experiential learning literature (Kolb,
1984; Cope and Watts, 2000; J ones-Evans et al, 2000; Rae and Carswell, 2000; Pittaway and Cope,
2007; Chia, 2008; Easterby-Smith, 2008; Leitch and Harrison, 2008; McHenry, 2008; Politis,
2008), we have argued that effective entrepreneurial learning can also occur within a university
context where a student is involved concurrently in creating a new venture. We have supported this
argument by highlighting the connection between both pre-start business planning (Castrogiovanni,
1996) and advice and mentoring while the business is operating (Deakins et al, 1998; Gartner et al,
1999l BCC, 2008), on the one hand, and the effective implementation of a new venture and,
therefore, its optimal survival and growth prospects, on the other. Indeed, “some kind of
apprenticeship” (Aronsson, 2004: 289; Hindle, 2007) can provide effective entrepreneurial learning.
In particular, Politis’s (2008) process model is of importance in that it conceptualises the factors
that are involved in the entrepreneurial learning process in which experience is converted into
entrepreneurial knowledge.
14
Third, we have argued that through real-life experiential learning and new venture based
learning (i.e. the process of starting a new venture), the student/entrepreneur can enhance his or her
prospects of being more successful, and growing the firm (or at least surviving in its early years as
it seeks stability). Mentoring can contribute to entrepreneurial learning in the new venture’s
‘internal processes’ (endogenous) and ‘outside the boundaries’ of the firm (exogenous) (Easterby-
Smith, 2008). Our model is a a practice-based, experiential model of entrepreneurial learning in the
context of an individual who starts up their own new venture (as an entrepreneur), whilst also
participating in an uber-experiential Masters programme which aims – for example, through, given
the necessity of connecting assessment to learning outcomes (Pittaway et al, 2009), linking
assessment directly to the new venture – to enhance the effectiveness of their entrepreneurial
learning to contribute to the successful future performance of their venture. As such, it would
provide entrepreneurial learning and mentoring for people concurrently starting up a new venture
and there will be active engagement between the student, the tutors and the mentors to ensure
optimal entrepreneurial strategising and implementation of the business plan for the new venture.
Fourth, we have distinguished ‘pedagogic’ (through the classroom) entrepreneurial learning
from new venture based – through actually starting and running a new venture – entrepreneurial
learning. Indeed, we have considered the relevance of Bourdieu’s forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986;
Elam 2008) to the entrepreneurial process and have emphasised the importance of understanding
entrepreneurial learning as a process that essentially relies upon socio-cultural capital (supported by
McHenry, 2008: 76). Therefore, interaction and practice-embedded learning (McHenry, 2008) in
the process of entrepreneurial learning (Politis, 2008) are central to how New Venture Based
Learning can be operationalised.
Fifth and finally, we have explained the different approaches to enterprise education on a
spectrum of experiential learning (cf Fisher, 2008). The three broad approaches – lectures; role
play/drama and simulation & gaming; and running a genuine business – vary in the degree to which
they are experiential, reflective and, therefore, effective for promoting entrepreneurial learning. We
believe that our uber-experiential approach is the most effective in impacting upon individuals’
motivation – and their ability – to enhance their entrepreneurial knowledge (Fisher et al, 2008;
Politis, 2008). Whilst contemporary enterprise education in the UK does, therefore, go as far as
highly experiential simulation and gaming, this is where it tends to stop. Even though Babson
College in the US encourages its first year students to start businesses, these are essentially
‘disposable’ as, in essence, they are not owned by the students and at the end of the course they are
terminated with any surplus donated to charity – but its Foundation for Management Excellence
course is highly innovative and experiential.
15
This model is part of the innovative pedagogy strand of the ELVIS model
4
, building on the
100 per cent embedded curriculum model at Queen’s University Belfast in the degree pathway of
22,000 students. The university’s model was benchmarked in a Directorate General (DG) Enterprise
report as a best practice curriculum model (European Commission, 2008). Enterprise is embedded
within existing modules in 67 non-business disciplines at the University. The enterprise for life
model has a focus on students going through the entrepreneurial process of creating, innovating and
executing – with students given the choice to focus on starting their own business, social enterprise
or intrapreneurial project in the corporate setting. There is an opportunity for students to learn by
having an opportunity to implement their innovation through developing their own business. The
difference from Babson College type models is the focus on learning, as well as business success; at
Babson, students are given poor marks if they do not raise venture capital (which is very tied to
American culture). As we believe that serial entrepreneurs have to learn from failure, our pedagogy
– whilst aiming for success – allows students to apply the Kolb model (plan, do, and reflect) and to
learn from failure, as well as success. It should not be surprising to the reader that the key
recommendation emerging from this paper is that we would encourage universities not only in the
UK but in other parts of Europe (and elsewhere) to introduce exploratory programmes that
implement the New Venture Based Learning model. At Queen’s University Belfast, we are in the
process of validating a Masters programme in New Venture Creation for commencement in
September 2009. Discussions between the university’s Regional Office and Queen’s University
Management School have identified the critical need for a Masters-level programme which provides
practical and academic support to graduates who have a viable idea with growth potential over the
first year that they create and grow their new venture. The primary rationale for this new
programme is, therefore, to meet an economic and social need within Northern Ireland for focused,
practice-oriented provision of postgraduate enterprise education for graduates who have a viable
business idea with growth potential. The MSc New Venture Creation builds on activity at the
Undergraduate and Postgraduate level to enable students to develop the capacity to apply their
project practically. The MSc New Venture Creation is in line with the regional development
agency, Invest NI’s, aim to create new ventures with high growth potential. We anticipate that
students will have started implementing their new venture by the time they begin the course or, if
not, within the first few weeks. In some cases, they will not be trading – but most should at least be
looking for their first customer(s) and some may even have successfully made the first sale. Our
definition of start up is that students will have registered the business whether they are actively
looking for customers at that stage or not.
4
The acronym ELVIS refers to Embedding Enterprise; Lifelong learning skill system; Value all resources; Innovative teaching
strategies/Institutional support; and Student centred with Alumni.
16
There are two potential types of students on this programme, both of whose needs will be
catered for effectively through the provision of mentors and other support:
(i) those who are ready to trade, who may have ideas which are low growth, relatively low
(or medium) risk, low entry barriers (e.g. funding requirements), and are near to market; and
(ii) those who will be non-trading for some time, who have a high-growth potential, distant
from market, high risk, and may be developing a prototype or other technology which means
they may not be able to start trading during the MSc.
Mentors and the Course Director will monitor the speed and robustness of the development
or implementation of the new venture (through the portfolio of evidence and notes from mentor-
student meetings): although not a formal part of the assessment of this MSc, such monitoring is
necessary to ensure students can progress the implementation of their new venture at a satisfactory
speed, and that developmental issues or barriers can be identified by an “early warning system” and
resolved.
In the first semester, three modules will run concurrently, the first of which introduces
students to the concepts and practicalities of entrepreneurship and more specifically to the model of
New Venture Based Learning applied within the MSc New Venture Creation. At the same time, in a
module on Entrepreneurial Strategy and Planning, students will gain the ability to enhance and
develop their idea into a more strategic vehicle for the future development and growth of the
business. The third module in the first semester will focus on Entrepreneurial Marketing & Sales,
and hence students will gain the ability to undertake sales and marketing activities in an
entrepreneurial way, which builds upon the existing idea.
Semester two involves three further concurrent modules. The first is on Entrepreneurial
Finance, giving students the ability to obtain finance and financially manage the business. The
second focuses on Innovation, i.e. the ability to be innovative to grow the new venture. The third
focuses on Leadership and Management, hence providing the ability to lead and manage the new
venture in a strategic and entrepreneurial manner. Finally, students will undertake a Strategic
Review of their business. Throughout all modules, students will be mentored and assessed on that
particular functional aspect of their new venture.
At the end of the degree course, the ‘Project’ – which is not a dissertation in the traditional
sense due to its experiential, reflective and New Venture Based Learning approach – is a Strategic
Review of students’ experience over the course, both of the pre-start activity, the process of starting
the business and beginning to trade. Students are required to write a 15,000 word (minimum)
reflective document: a Strategic Review of how successful or otherwise their strategy has been over
the first year. This Strategic Review is not assessed on how successful the business has been in its
first year as it is often the most difficult for many businesses. The Strategic Review will vary
17
depending on the type of student and how near/distant from market their idea is; level of funding
required, risk, and growth potential. Furthermore, it is an opportunity for some students to review
the implications of taking their idea to market. Indeed, while some students may have a real
business at the end of this process (which may or may not be trading), others may rather have a
refined set of ideas.
Whatever the outcome, it is clear that the uber-experiential pedagogical model of New
Venture Based Learning can make a major difference to the entrepreneurial learning, and survival
and growth prospects of the students’ new venture.
Author Biographies
David Gibson is a Senior Teaching Fellow at Queen’s University Belfast. He is responsible
for the development and implementation of an Enterprise Curriculum model which is embedded
within all disciplinary areas. He is the only national Teaching Fellow in enterprise education in the
UK and his book “The Efactor” is now used at over 150 Universities worldwide as a core text. His
work has been recognized internationally as best practice by the EU in December 2008. He is now
an International key note speaker on Enterprise Education issues and leads all International
Enterprise Education projects at Queen’s. David is also a board member of the UK Enterprise
Educators Board and a serial Entrepreneur.
Dr Jonathan M. Scott teaches innovation management and new venture creation at
Queen’s University Belfast; and is a Visiting Research Fellow at TSE Entre, Turku School of
Economics, Finland in summer 2009. He has collaborated on over 20 research projects on enterprise
education, innovation, and small businesses funded by public sector clients. He has co-authored
papers in journals such as International Small Business Journal and Environment and Planning C,
and he is a member of the editorial review board of Gender in Management: an International
Journal.
Aisling Harkin delivers enterprise education to a diverse blend of students from Arts,
Humanities, Social Sciences, and Science, Engineering and Technology disciplines. She assists in
co-ordinating a range of programmes and events to promote entrepreneurship within Queen’s, in
addition to supporting the university Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) team. Her career to date in
the higher education sector spans three years and she has had the opportunity to work on the
Queen’s-Shenzhen J oint University Foundation in Management Program in China, as well as
participate on the Babson Symposium for global Entrepreneurship Educators hailing from around
the globe. Also, Aisling is finishing her doctorate on high growth firms within Northern Ireland.
18
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Professor J ohn Thompson of the University of Huddersfield (External
Validator), Dr Nola Hewitt-Dundas, Dr Karen King, Mr J ames Campbell, and Mrs Tracy Andrew
for their advice and support in the process of validating the MSc programme and, therefore, in the
development of our pedagogical model of New Venture Based Learning. In addition, we wish to
acknowledge the support of colleagues in Research & Regional Services and in Queen’s University
Management School – in particular, the experts in entrepreneurial learning, Professor Richard T.
Harrison and Dr Claire M. Leitch.
Bibliography
Akola, E. and Heinonen, J . (2006) ‘How to Support Learning of Entrepreneurs? A Study of
Training Programmes for Entrepreneurs in Five European Countries’, RENT XX conference,
Brussels, November.
Anderson, A., Park, J . and J ack, S. (2007) “Entrepreneurial social capital: Conceptualizing
social capital in new high-tech firms”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.
245-272.
Aronsson, M. (2004) ‘Education matters – but does entrepreneurship education? An
interview with David Birch’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3): 289-292.
Béchard, J -P. and Grégoire, D. (2005) “Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The
Case of Higher Education”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1): 22–43.
Bennett R.J . and Robson, P.J .A. (2004) ‘The role of trust and contract in the supply of
business advice’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28: 471-488.
Bennett, R.J . (2008) “SME policy support in Britain since the 1990s: what have we learnt?”,
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 26(2) 375–397.
Birch, D. (1979) The job generation process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Program in
Neighborhood and Regional Change.
Blackburn, R. and Smallbone, D. (2008) ‘Researching small firms and entrepreneurship in
the UK: Developments and distinctiveness’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(2): 267–
288.
Botham, R. and Mason, C. (2007) Good Practice in Enterprise Development in UK Higher
Education, Research Report 004/2007, Birmingham: National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) 'The forms of capital', in Richardson, J and Westport, CT (Eds)
Handbook of Theory and Practice in the Sociology of Education, Greenwood Press: Westport CT.
Bridge, S. and McGowan, P. (2007) Relating Entrepreneurship Education to the Level of
Entrepreneurship in a Population, NCGE Working Paper, 027/2007, Birmingham: NCGE.
British Chambers of Commerce (2008) Growing Pains: What is Holding SMEs Back?,
British Chambers of Commerce: London.
Carey, C.A., Smith, K. and Martin, L. (2007) “Supporting enterprise educators; how to
promote enterprise in new areas”, Paper presented at the 30th Institute for Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Conference, Glasgow, November.
Casson, M. and Della Giusta, M. (2007) “Entrepreneurship and social capital: Analysing the
impact of social networks on entrepreneurial activity from a rational action perspective”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3: 220-244.
Castrogiovanni, G.J . (1996) ‘Pre-startup planning and the survival of new small businesses:
Theoretical linkages’, Journal of Management, 22(6): 801-823.
19
Chia, R. (2008) ‘Enhancing entrepreneurial learning through peripheral vision’, in Harrison,
R.T. and Leitch, C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Applications,
Routledge, London: 27-43.
Churchill, N. and Lewis, V. (1983) ‘The Five Stages of Small Business Growth’, Harvard
Business Review, May-J une: 30-50.
Cope, J . (2005) ‘Toward a Dynamic Learning Perspective of Entrepreneurship’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29 (4): 373 – 397.
Cope, J . and Watts, G. (2000) ‘Learning by doing: an exploration of critical incidents and
reflection in entrepreneurial learning’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, 6 (3): 104-24.
Dainow, W. (1986) “Training and Education of Entrepreneurs: The Current State of the
Literature”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 3(4): 10-23.
Deakins, D., Graham, L., Sullivan, R. and Whittam, G. (1998) ‘New venture support: an
analysis of mentoring support for new and early stage entrepreneurs’, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, 5(2): 151-161.
Easterby-Smith, M. (2008) ‘Preface: A conversation between entrepreneurship and
organisational learning’, in Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning:
Conceptual Frameworks and Applications, Routledge, London,. ix-xxii
Elam, A.B. (2008) Gender and Entrepreneurship: A Multilevel Theory and Analysis,
Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.
Eliasson, G. (1996) Firm Objectives, Control and Organization, Kluwer: Boston. (cited by
Leitch and Harrison, 2008).
Eliasson, G. (1998) The Nature of Economic Change and Management in the Knowledge
Based Information Economy, working paper, Department of Industrial Economics and
Management, KTH Stockholm. (cited by Leitch and Harrison, 2008).
European Commission (2008) Entrepreneurship in Higher Education, Especially within
Non-Business Studies: Final Report of the Expert Group, Brussels: Enterprise and Industry
Directorate-General, European Commission.
Fiet, J .O. (2001a) ‘The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship, Journal of Business
Venturing, 16 (1): 1-24.
Fiet, J .O. (2001b) ‘The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory’, Journal of Business
Venturing, 16 (2): 101-117.
Fisher, S.L., Graham, M.E. and Compeau, M. (2008) ‘Starting from scratch: Understanding
the learning outcomes of undergraduate entrepreneurship education’, in Harrison, R.T. and Leitch,
C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Applications, Routledge,
London, 313-337.
Fleischmann, F. (2008) “Entrepreneurship as a Way of Life”, key note address delivered at
the “Kongress Studieren – Forschen – Gründen’”, German Ministry of Economics and Technology,
Berlin, 1 October.
Gartner, W.B. (2008) “Entrepreneurship-Hop”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,
March: 361-368.
Gartner, W.B., Starr, J .A. and Bhat, S. (1999) ‘Predicting new venture survival’, Journal of
Business Venturing, 14 (2): 215-232.
Gibrat, R. (1931) Les Inégalités Économiques, Libraire de Recueil Sirez: Paris.
Gibson, D.G., Harkin, A. and Scott, J .M. (2009) ‘Towards a Pedagogical Model of New
Venture Based Learning’, paper presented to the European Foundation for Management
Development (efmd) Entrepreneurship Conference, Barcelona, February.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997) “Some Research Perspectives on
Entrepreneurial Education, Enterprise Education and Education for Small Business Management: a
Ten Year Review”, International Small Business Journal, 15(3): 56-77.
Greene F.J ., Mole, K. and Storey, D.J . (2008) Three Decades of Enterprise Culture?:
Entrepreneurship, Economic Regeneration and Public Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
20
Greiner, L. (1972) ‘Evolution and Revolution as Organisations Grow’, Harvard Business
Review, J uly-August, pp. 37-46.
Greve, A. and Salaff, J .W. (2003) “Social networks and entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Fall, pp. 1-22.
Hannon, P. (2004) “Philosophies of Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education and the
Challenges for Higher Education in the UK”, paper presented at the Institute for Small Business
Affairs 27th National Conference, Newcastle 2004.
Hannon, P. (2006) “Teaching Pigeons to Dance: Sense and Meaning in Entrepreneurship
Education”, Education + Training, 48(5): 296-308.
Hannon, P. (2007) “Enterprise for All? The Fragility of Enterprise Provision across
England’s HEIs”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2): 183-210.
Hannon, P. (2007) “Enterprise for All? The fragility of enterprise provision across
England’s HEIs”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 183-
210.
Hannon, P., Brooksbank, D., Gray, C., Fuller, T., J arvis, R, Keogh, B., Kirby, D. and Sear,
L. (2004) Making the Journey from Student to Entrepreneur: A Review of the Existing Research
into Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham: National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship.
Hannon, P., Scott, J .M., Martin, L., Reddy, S. and Millman, C. (2006) “The state of
education provision for enterprise and entrepreneurship: A mapping study of England’s HEIs”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 4: 41-72.
Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C.M. (Eds) (2008) Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual
Frameworks and Applications, Routledge: Abingdon.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2003) Entrepreneurship Education and Training,
Ashgate: Aldershot.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch. C. (2005a) “Entrepreneurship Education and Training: Can
Entrepreneurship Be Taught? Part I”, Education + Training, 47(2): 98-111.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch. C. (2005b) “Entrepreneurship Education and Training: Can
Entrepreneurship Be Taught? Part II”, Education + Training, 47(3): 158-169.
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) (1971) The Bolton Report: Report of the
Committee of Enquiry on Small Firms, HMSO: London.
Herrmann, K., Hannon, P., Cox, J ., Ternouth, P. and Crowley, T. (2008) Developing
Entrepreneurial Graduates: Putting entrepreneurship at the centre of higher education, Council for
Industry and Higher Education (CIHE), National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE)
and National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA): London.
Hindle, K. (2007) ‘Teaching entrepreneurship at University: from the wrong building to the
right philosophy’, in Fayolle, A. Ed Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Edward
Elgar: Cheltenham.
Hussain, J ., Matlay, H. and Scott, J .M. (2008) ‘Financial education and awareness in small
ethnic minority businesses’, Education + Training, 50 (8/9): 737-747.
Hytti U., and Kuopusjärvi, P. (2004) “Three Perspectives to Evaluating Entrepreneurship
Education: Evaluators, Programme Promoters and Policy Makers”, paper presented at the efmd 34th
EISB Conference, Turku, Finland.
J ack, S.L. and Anderson, A.R. (1999) ‘Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise
culture: Producing reflective practitioners’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, 5(3): 110-125.
J ones-Evans, D., Williams, W. and Deacon, J . (2000) ‘Developing entrepreneurial
graduates: an action-learning approach’, Education + Training, 42: 282-288.
Kirzner, I. (1997) ‘Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An
Austrian Approach’, Journal of Economic Literature 35: 60-85
Knight, F.H. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton Mifflin: New York.
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development, Prentice-Hall: New J ersey.
21
Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø. (1997) “Entrepreneurship Among Business Graduates: Does a
Major in Entrepreneurship Make a Difference?”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(4):
154-160.
Kuratko, D. (2005) “The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends,
and Challenges”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, September: 577-597.
Laukkanen, M. (2000) ‘Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship
education: creating micro-mechanisms for endogenous regional growth’, Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 12: 25-47.
Leitch, C. and Harrison, R.T. (1999) “A Process Model for Entrepreneurship Education and
Development”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 5(3): 83-109.
Leitch, C. and Harrison, R.T. (2008) “Entrepreneurial learning: a review and research
agenda”, in Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual Frameworks
and Applications, Routledge, London, pp. 3-23.
Little, B. (2006) Employability and Work-Based Learning, The Higher Education Academy:
York.
McMahon, R.G.P. (1998) Stage Models of SME Growth Reconsidered, School of
Commerce Research paper series, 98-5, The Flinders University of South Australia: Adelaide.
Macpherson, A. (2005) ‘Learning How to Grow: Resolving the Crisis of Knowing’,
Technovation, 25 (10), 1129-1139.
Mason, C., Carter, S. and Tagg, S. (2006) “The characteristics and performance of
businesses started by recent university graduates”, paper presented at 20th RENT Entrepreneurship
Conference, Brussels, Belgium.
McClelland, D. (1961) The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand, Princeton NJ .
McHenry, J . (2008) ‘The role and management of learning from experience in an
entrepreneurial context’, in Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning:
Conceptual Frameworks and Applications, Routledge, London,, pp. 72-91.
Mole, K., Hart, M., Roper, S. and Saal, D. (2008) ‘Differential gains from Business Link
support and advice: a treatment effects approach’, Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy, 26(2): 315-334.
Moreland, N. (2005) Work-Related Learning in Higher Education, The Higher Education
Academy: York.
Morgan, S. and Roberts, J . (1997) Accounting for the Growth of the ‘Firm’, paper prepared
for the Fifth Interdisciplinary Perspectives On Accounting Conference, Manchester, J uly 7-9.
Nabi, G. (2003) “Graduate employment and underemployment: opportunity for skill use and
career experiences amongst recent business graduates”, Education + Training, Vol. 45, No. 7, pp.
371-382.
Nabi, G., Holden, R. and Walmsley, A. (2006) “Graduate career-making and business start-
up: A literature review”, Education +Training, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 373-385.
National Audit Office (2006) Supporting Small Business, National Audit Office: London.
Neck, H. and Stoddard, D. (2006) “Babson College nominates The Foundation Management
Experience (FME) for USASBE’s Innovative Entrepreneurship Education Course”, Babson
College: Babson Park, MA.
Nikolou-Walker, E. (2008) The Expanded University: Work-based Learning and the
Economy, Pearson Education: Harlow.
Nixon, I., Smith, K., Stafford, R. and Camm, S. (2006) Work-Based Learning: Illuminating
the Higher Education Landscape, The Higher Education Academy: York.
NOP (2004) SBS Household Survey of Entrepreneurship 2003, NOP: London.
Pittaway, L.A. and Cope, J .P. (2007a) 'Simulating entrepreneurial learning: integrating
experiential and collaborative approaches to learning', Management Learning, vol 38(2), 211-233
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J . (2007b) “Entrepreneurship education – a systematic review of the
evidence”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 477-506.
22
Pittaway, L. and Hannon, P. (2008) “Institutional Strategies for Developing Enterprise
Education: a Review of Some Concepts and Models”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 15(1): 202-226.
Pittaway, L., Hannon, P., Gibb, A. and Thompson, J . (2009) "Assessment practice in
enterprise education", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 15 (1): 71-
93.
Plaschka, G. R. and H. P. Welsch (1990) “Emerging Structures in Entrepreneurship
Education: Curricular Designs and Strategies”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3): 55-
71.
Politis, D. (2005) , "The process of entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework",
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4): 399-424.
Politis, D. (2008) “The process of entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework”, in
Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and
Applications, Routledge, London, pp. 44-71.
Queen’s University Belfast (2009) Programme Evaluation Documentation: MSc New
Venture Creation, Queen’s University Belfast: Belfast.
Rae, D. (2005) ‘Mid-career entrepreneurial learning’, Education + Training, 47 (8/9): 562-
574.
Rae, D. (2007) “Connecting Enterprise and Graduate Employability: Challenges to the
Higher Education Culture and Curriculum?”, Education + Training, 49(8/9): 605-619.
Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2000) ‘Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial
learning: the development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning
experiences’, Education + Training, 42 (4/5): 220-227.
Richard, D. (2008) Small Business and Government: the Richard Report, Conservative
Party: London.
Richard, D., Connell, D., Ibbetson, P., Kestenbaum, J . and Richards, A. (2007) Richard
Review on Small Business & Government: Interim Report, Conservative Party: London.
Rosa, P. (2003) “Hardly likely to make the J apanese tremble: the businesses of recently
graduated university and college entrepreneurs”, International Small Business Journal, 21 (4): 435-
459.
Schumacher, E.E. (1974) Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered.
London: Abacus.
Schumpeter, J .A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press:
Cambridge MA.
Scott, J .M. and Irwin, D. (2009, in press) ‘Discouraged advisees? The influence of gender,
ethnicity, and education in the use of advice and finance by UK SMEs’, Environment and Planning
C: Government and Policy, 27 (1), forthcoming.
Scott, J .M., and Hussain, J . (2008) ‘Ownership succession and enterprise education in UK
ethnic minority family firms’, paper presented at the FBE 2008 Conference ‘Best Practices on
Family Business and Entrepreneurship Higher Education’, August 21-22, 2008, University of
J yväskylä, Finland.
Scott, J .M., Gibson, D.G., Harkin, A. (2009) ‘New Venture Based Learning in the Nordic
Context: A Pedagogy for High-Growth Venturing’, submitted to 20th Annual NFF Nordic
Academy of Management, Turku, Finland, August.
Scott, M. G. and Twomey, D. F. (1988) “The Long Term Supply of Entrepreneurs:
Students’ Career Aspirations in Relation to Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business
Management, 26(4): 5-12.
Smith, K. (2007) “Supporting E-Learning in Enterprise: The TE3 Project”, Education +
Training, 49(8/9): 656-670.
Solomon, G. (2006) ‘Are We Teaching Small Business Management to Entrepreneurs and
Entrepreneurship to Small Business Managers?’, United States Association for Small Business and
Entrepreneurship (USASBE), White Paper Series, USABE, Boca Raton, FL.
23
Solomon, G.T., Weaver, K.M. and Fernald, L.W. (1994) ‘A historical examination of small
business management and entrepreneurship pedagogy’, Simulation & Gaming, 25(3): 338-252.
Storey, D.J . (1994) Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge: London.
Van Auken, H., Fry, F.L. and Stephens, P. (2006) “The influence of role models on
entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 157-
167.
Vesper, K. and Gartner, W. (1997) “Measuring Progress in Entrepreneurship Education”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 403-421.
Welter, F. and Smallbone, D. (2006) “Exploring the role of trust in entrepreneurial activity”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, J uly, pp. 465-475.
24
doc_124571148.pdf
In this detailed explanation concerning new venture based learning an experiential pedagogy for high growth entrepreneurship.
Queen’s University Management School Working Paper Series
Working paper No: MS_WPS_MAN_09_1
Title: New Venture Based Learning - An Experiential Pedagogy
for High-Growth Entrepreneurship
Author(s):
David Gibson
Dr Jonathan M. Scott
Aisling Harkin
(all at Queen’s University Management School)
Date: February 2009
1
New Venture Based Learning - An Experiential Pedagogy
for High-Growth Entrepreneurship
We describe how enterprise educators can facilitate more effective entrepreneurial learning
for students while they are concurrently in the process of starting a new venture, hence enhancing
its growth potential. We demonstrate why our uber-experiential New Venture Based Learning
approach is the most effective pedagogy to impact upon individuals’ motivation – and their ability –
to enhance their entrepreneurial knowledge and, ultimately, the subsequent performance and
growth of their new venture. We conclude the paper with a summary and some practical
recommendations for the implementation of this experiential pedagogy for high-growth
entrepreneurship.
Introduction
This paper presents the practical and theoretical rationale for the development of a new
pedagogical model of New Venture Based Learning (NVBL). The paper thus seeks to answer the
following research question: Can enterprise
1
educators more effectively facilitate entrepreneurial
learning for students while they are in the process of starting a new venture, rather than in a ‘pre-
start’ educational intervention? The authors are currently developing a new-venture-based-learning
MSc in New Venture Creation, as well as undertaking research into this model in the Nordic
context (Scott et al, 2009). This paper, therefore, addresses the research question by building theory
(a pedagogical model), with enterprise education as the dependent variable and student-
entrepreneurs as the unit of analysis.
Work-based learning has evidently been successful in promoting employability and
enterprising behaviours at UK higher education institutions (Moreland, 2005; Little, 2006;
Nixon et
al, 2006). This approach has primarily been aimed at Undergraduate programmes, in which there is
an element of work experience or an employer placement. However, this is usually geared towards
students working in other businesses rather than their own, and learning from external mentors and
internal managers. Two exceptions to this rule follow. The first is the BA Enterprise Development
at the University of Huddersfield which will be running for the first time in September 2009. In this
1
In this paper we use the terms “new venture creation”, “enterprise” and “entrepreneurship” interchangeably to refer to both the
process of creating and growing a new venture, and to the specific set of skills and competences required to do so successfully.
Entrepreneurial learning is: “an experiential process where enterprising individuals continuously develop their entrepreneurial
knowledge throughout their professional lives” (Politis, 2008: 45).
2
programme, students screen opportunities in the first year, plan and start up their new venture in the
second, and run the venture in their third year. Secondly, the Student Placements for Entrepreneurs
in Education (SPEED) programme run from the University of Wolverhampton which provides
enterprise placements for Undergraduates, with mentoring and financial support, so that students
can start their own business, rather than working for someone else. Another example, which we
discuss later in the paper, is the one-year Foundation for Management Experience (FME)
programme for first year students that Babson College runs (Neck and Stoddard, 2006) which
“was created in 1996 to give all first year, undergraduate students an integrated view of business management
…. The focus of FME is on opportunity recognition, resource parsimony, team development, holistic thinking
and value creation through harvest. The vehicle of learning is a limited duration business start up steeped in
entrepreneurial thinking and a basic understanding of all functions of business. Because FME is a required
course, all first year undergraduates experience the entire cycle of entrepreneurship. The course is a blend of
theory and practice, which forms the basis for the entire Babson undergraduate core curriculum.
“A total of 13 faculty with core expertise in information technology, entrepreneurship, management,
marketing, accounting, and finance are involved in teaching, coordinating and running the course …. Each
business team receives an initial loan up to $3000 from the College to launch and run their business which is
organized like a company with a CEO and different departments managed by vice presidents. In May, all
profits are donated to a community service organization chosen by the students in each business. In addition to
the donation of money, each student is required to give six hours of their time working with their chosen
community service organization
“Since its inception FME businesses have evolved from selling cookies on campus to negotiating contracts
with suppliers in China. Average revenue and profit for FME businesses are $5,500 and $2,000 respectively;
however, businesses have earned as much as $30,500 in revenue and $18,000 in profit in a 12 week period.
Most importantly, the FME businesses are able to make a significant impact on their local communities ….
Since 1999, 2,520 FME students have donated to $218,263 and more than 15,000 hours of their time to
community service organizations.” (Neck and Stoddard, 2006, pp. 1-2; p. 6)
Our New Venture Based Learning model can, therefore, enable established learning models –
such as Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle – and more recent conceptual developments (e.g. Politis’s
(2008) process model of entrepreneurial learning) to be applied to two combined and concurrent
processes of enterprise education and new venture creation by developing students’ enterprise skills
while they are concurrently creating a new venture. Henry et al (2003) reviewed different
approaches to delivering enterprise education programmes; discussed whether or not enterprise can
be taught (see also Henry et al, 2005a, b); and highlighted the importance of measuring the
effectiveness of such pedagogic interventions. They discuss of J amieson’s categorisation of:
3
• “education about enterprise: awareness creation ... educating students on the various aspects of setting up and
running a business mostly from a theoretical perspective.
• “education for enterprise: the preparation of aspiring entrepreneurs for a career in self-employment with the
specific objective of encouraging participants to set-up and run their own business.
• “and education in enterprise: management training for established entrepreneurs and focuses on ensuring the
growth and future development of the business.” (Henry et al, 2003: 92-93).
The New Venture Based Learning pedagogical model, however, proposes developing a
Masters-level programme that sits somewhere between “education for enterprise” and “education in
enterprise.” As such, it would provide entrepreneurial learning and mentoring for people
concurrently starting up a new venture and there will be active engagement between the student, the
tutors and the mentors to ensure optimal entrepreneurial strategising and implementation of the
business plan for the new venture. In starting a new venture, the entrepreneur bears risks (Knight,
1921) by discovering and exploiting opportunities (Kirzner, 1997), has a high need for achievement
(McClelland, 1961) and perhaps even, through dynamism and sustainable competitive advantage,
leads to creative destruction, ultimately causing established players to fail (Schumpeter, 1934). For
some time, there has been interest in new venture creation and the enterprise culture in the UK and,
in particular, the role of Government in promoting business start-up (Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office, 1971; Storey, 1994; Greene et al, 2008). It has, however, been suggested that Government-
backed business support has been suboptimal (National Audit Office, 2006; Richard et al, 2007).
While Bennett (2008) queries its value for money, Richard (2008: 5), who is himself one of the
Dragons of the BBC’s Dragons Den, proposes the replacement of the current bureaucratic
architecture with ‘a single, web-based Business Information Service.’ Indeed, the bard of
entrepreneurial research, Gartner (2008), notes:
“Hey! What about the U.K.? (Blackburn & Smallbone, 2008)
“Small is beautiful” is not just a matter of testament, (Schumacher, 1974)
Small firms help an economy be resilient.
Birch’s study on small firms was an astonishment (Birch, 1979)
That job growth was an important argument,
For SME research to become more pertinent.
The Bolton report points out the predicament
That new and small firms have not been salient
In the discussion of making the U.K. more affluent.
Much of U.K. research appears to be driven,
By how much the national government has given,
So that spurring evidence-based policy’s development,
U.K. research explores whether government choices are relevant.”
4
Whilst there is evidence that business support from the UK Government-run Business Link
can contribute to firm growth (Mole et al, 2008), owner-managers are more likely to trust
accountants and solicitors than public-sector business support organisations (Bennett and Robson,
2004; Scott and Irwin, 2009). Moreover, the role of trust is important in that effective business
advice and mentoring – generally, from private sector sources such as accountants – is key to
business survival and growth (Deakins et al, 1998; Gartner et al, 1999). Not having access to
external advice from experienced advisers or mentors – to help them make the correct decisions – is
a significant barrier for nascent small firms (British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), 2008).
Furthermore, formal ‘pre-start’ business planning can improve business survival rates
(Castrogiovanni, 1996). Hence, for owner-managers and potential entrepreneurs, social capital and
networks (Anderson et al., 2007; Casson and Della Giusta, 2007; Greve and Salaff, 2003), mentors
and advisors that they trust (Welter and Smallbone, 2007) are highly important in ensuring the
growth and survival of their new ventures. In terms of the theoretical context to small firm growth,
Gibrat (1931) found that a firm’s size and its rate of growth were not mutually influential, i.e. there
was no significant relationship, and indeed this law has been reinforced by other studies. Greiner’s
(1972) model emphasised five stages of business growth, each triggered by a crisis: creativity;
direction; delegation; co-ordination and collaboration. Other research supports the importance of
stage models of SME growth (Churchill and Lewis, 1987; McMahon, 1998; Morgan and Roberts,
1997). An alternative approach, however, was suggested by Macpherson (2005) who considered:
“how the case companies managed transition and innovation in organizational systems in order to resolve
specific crises and facilitate growth … [R]ather than sequential crises, these firms were dealing with a number
of crises concurrently, and solutions were significantly dependent on existing experience and systems of
organising, managers’ perception of the crises, and access to relevant knowledge.”
Macpherson’s analysis leads on to the main argument of this paper in which we propose our
model by considering how entrepreneurial knowledge is generated, through ‘existing experience’
and social networks (‘access to relevant knowledge’, as he suggests).
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 critiques existing provision of
Masters level enterprise education and identifies what is wrong with current pedagogical
approaches to enterprise education. Section 3 focuses more specifically on how New Venture Based
Learning marries the teaching and learning processes together in the form of our pedagogical
model, building on existing research into enterprise education, entrepreneurial learning, and the
effectiveness of both the learning and teaching processes. Finally, Section 4 provides a summary of
our principal arguments, as well as some practical and pedagogical recommendations for how this
model can (and will) be implemented.
5
Existing Enterprise Education: For ‘Thinkers’, Not ‘Doers’
Higher education institutions (HEIs) are another important source of advice and support for
those considering starting a new venture. HEI enterprise education – and, in particular, pedagogical
approaches – has been the subject of considerable interest by academics and amongst the reviews of
the subject are a number of significant contributions (for example, Dainow, 1986; Scott and
Twomey, 1988; Plaschka and Welsch, 1990; Solomon et al, 1994; Gorman et al, 1997; Kolvereid
and Moen, 1997; Vesper and Gartner, 1997; Leitch and Harrison, 1999; Laukkanen, 2000; Hannon
et al, 2004; Hytti ja Kuopusjärvi, 2004; Béchard and Grégoire, 2005; Henry et al 2005a, b; Akola
and Heinonen, 2006; Hannon, 2006; Hannon et al, 2006; Van Auken et al, 2006; Botham and
Mason, 2007; Bridge and McGowan, 2007; Hannon, 2007; Pittaway and Cope, 2007a,b; Smith,
2007; European Commission, 2008; Herrmann et al, 2008; Hussain et al, 2008; Scott and Hussain,
2008; Pittaway et al, 2009). So what exactly is wrong with existing Masters level enterprise
education provision in the UK and, by implication, much of the Undergraduate enterprise
education?
An analysis of the outlines of Masters level enterprise education courses in the UK (Gibson
et al, 2009) found that these programmes tend to cover functional areas such as marketing,
innovation, finance, as well as risk management and resource management (Queen’s University
Belfast, 2009). In addition, such courses are full-time, 12 months, of which 9 months are taught and
3 months of dissertation preparation, normally a business plan (ibid). The methods of delivery
include lectures, discussion groups, individual and group practical exercises, case studies, and
business simulation (ibid). A key point emerging from the analysis is that almost all courses are
couched in the language of “pre-start”, “thinking of starting a business”, “planning to start up”, with
the exception of Queen Margaret University (Edinburgh)’s MBA Entrepreneurship, which does
refer to the possibility of people who run their own business enrolling on the course. However, none
of these MSc/MBA courses is tailored to those who are in the process of running a nascent, new
venture – they are largely geared towards “preparation” or imbuing students with “entrepreneurial”
skills to start up a business. Several programmes have a specific focus upon international, strategic
or technology entrepreneurship. They are predominantly theoretical and dissertation based and,
indeed, one (Master of Enterprise (MEnt) at The University of Manchester) is research-based. Most
of these programmes are clearly aimed at – using the language of the Household Survey of
Entrepreneurship (NOP, 2004) – “thinkers” (those thinking of starting a business), not “doers”
(those who actually are doing so).
However, two examples of good practice are the MSc Entrepreneurship and MSc Social
Enterprise offered by the University of Huddersfield. These programmes provide a healthy balance
of practice and theory, along with sensible learning and teaching methods, including case studies,
6
guest lectures by entrepreneurs and, perhaps most importantly, they are delivered largely by
Business School staff (i.e. practitioners with business experience). The provision of enterprise
education in England has been mapped (Hannon et al, 2006) and good practice in the area has been
extensively documented (Botham and Mason, 2007). A major concern that has emerged is whether
existing enterprise education is ‘effective’ (Henry et al, 2003) and the importance of providing solid
‘entrepreneurial outcomes’ (Hannon, 2007; Pittaway and Cope, 2007b; Pittaway and Hannon,
2008). Whilst many of the above studies have examined how universities have approached
enterprise education and its pedagogies, Laukkanen (2000) has advocated that HEIs adopt an
explicit strategy of business generation. In this regard, Herrmann et al (2008: 7) proposed that:
“Developing entrepreneurial teaching and learning practices demands a shift from transmission models of
teaching (learning ‘about’) to experiential learning (learning ‘for’) and offers students techniques that can be
applied in the real world. Our report calls for learning approaches that incorporate practical examples from
outside the university into the classroom, and offer reflective practice, ownership and opportunity to students
.… A project or practice-based learning process, rather than one that is theoretical, makes learning relevant to a
range of applications …. Immersion in practice places the practitioner at the centre of the learning experience.
The use of drama and performance techniques is an essential part of the entrepreneurial learning process as
many entrepreneurs are continually ‘acting’ and ‘performing’ in their many roles.” (Herrmann et al, 2008: 21)
These suggestions have clear implications for the delivery of effective enterprise education
with solid entrepreneurial outcomes (Henry et al, 2003; Hannon, 2007; Pittaway and Cope, 2007b;
Pittaway and Hannon, 2007). It appears, based on our analysis above, that most UK Masters level
enterprise education provision is s simply not practice-based enough in order to provide the
entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial outcomes that are required, and that they are simply not
effective pedagogical approaches – furthermore, they are overly oriented towards ‘thinkers’ (who
may not even start a business) rather than ‘doers’. Given the nature of graduate enterprises (Rosa,
2003; Mason et al, 2007) and the deficiencies of much enterprise education provision, it is perhaps
not surprising that the graduate-run ventures are “hardly likely to make the J apanese tremble”
(Rosa, 2003). What if, as Akola and Heinonen (2006: 16) suggest, “Different assignments (e.g.,
working on a business idea or a plan) do not support learning if they are not embedded in a real-life
situation, and are easily considered artificial and useless”? We now explore the process and
outcomes of entrepreneurial learning and develop our pedagogical model of New Venture Based
Learning.
7
New Venture Based Learning: An Experiential Pedagogy
Entrepreneurial learning can be conceptualised as a complex transformative process in
which career experience is converted into entrepreneurial knowledge (Politis, 2008). While
traditionally the process of entrepreneurial learning has (with organizational learning) been
conceptualised as operating within the context of learning in an existing business or new venture
(Leitch and Harrison, 2008), we argue that effective entrepreneurial learning can also occur within a
university context where a student is involved concurrently in creating a new venture. Indeed, it is
clear that the entrepreneur’s ‘personal development’ should be a central consideration when
designing enterprise education programmes (Rae and Carswell, 2000). But surely the most effective
means of enhancing entrepreneurial learning is while an individual is actually in the process of
creating and growing a new venture? As we discussed earlier, whilst formal ‘pre-start’ business
planning can improve business survival rates (Castrogiovanni, 1996), the key pressure points at
which mentors and advisers can contribute to optimal growth and survival of a small firm is by
providing the advice and mentoring while the business is operating, not before (Deakins et al, 1998;
Gartner et al, 1999; BCC, 2008), and mentoring and coaching can enhance enterprise education
effectiveness (Fleischmann, 2008). Hence, drawing upon David Birch’s statement that “If you want
to encourage entrepreneurship, it should be through some kind of apprenticeship” (Aronsson, 2004:
289), Hindle (2007) suggests that universities could offer such an apprenticeship and, indeed, asks:
“Is the culture of the business school an immutable constant, or could business schools be induced
to adapt and diversify their educational approaches to suit different subject matter and different
student needs using different approaches than those that currently prevail?”
We agree with the approach of both Birch and Hindle in that student/entrepreneurs can more
effectively learn how to be better owner-managers in a real-world business environment. Although
case studies, business simulations, and other forms of experiential or reflective learning can
enhance entrepreneurial learning, only a genuine ‘apprenticeship’ can provide optimal
entrepreneurial learning. Before we consider some of the different forms of experiential and
reflective pedagogies, we first examine the field of entrepreneurial learning.
2
Much of this literature
has been influenced by Kolb’s experiential learning model (Kolb, 1984) in which people learn in
cycles and through a process of reflection and review (e.g. J ones-Evans et al, 2000; Cope and
Watts, 2000; Pittaway and Cope, 2007; and Politis, 2008).
2
Given the paucity of literature on entrepreneurial learning, we are grateful for the Harrison and Leitch (2008) volume, which has
provided key insights into this field.
8
A number of key themes in entrepreneurial learning can be highlighted, such as problem-
solving, learning from the expertise of others, experiential learning, endogenous versus exogenous
learning [or inter- versus intra-organisational learning (Leitch and Harrison, 2008: 10-16)],
absorptive capacity, and knowledge transfer from large organisations through supply chains etc
(Easterby-Smith, 2008). Indeed, Easterby-Smith (2008, p. xxi) flags up several key current debates,
such as:
• “Measurable links between learning processes and organisational performance”;
• “The process view”: “how groups and teams learn over time” and “communities of
practice”; and
• “creativity and innovation.”
It is all three of these debates that our paper makes a contribution to, in particular in relation
to how learning processes through enterprise education can enhance the performance of the new
venture which a student is creating, and the role of creativity and innovation. Our argument is
simple, in that through real-life experiential learning / new venture based learning (i.e. the process
of starting a new venture), the student/entrepreneur can enhance his or her prospects of being more
successful, and growing the firm (or at least surviving in its early years as it seeks stability). It is
quite clear that we can contribute to the entrepreneurial learning process as it applies to creativity
and innovation, at which high-technology, high-growth ventures ought to be particularly effective.
Such an experiential approach would also be of benefit to mid-career entrepreneurs, with their
different learning styles (Rae, 2005).
Linking back to the key themes that Easterby-Smith highlighted, we also seek to contribute
both to entrepreneurial learning in the new venture’s ‘internal processes’ (endogenous) and ‘outside
the boundaries’ of the firm (exogenous). The former relates to how our student/entrepreneurs learn
from the process of starting their own firm, in terms of what goes on inside this new business. And
the latter to how they can learn from others – clearly, this might include not only lecturers and
mentors/coaches, but also other individuals and stakeholders that they encounter (customers,
suppliers, potential financiers (e.g. business angels), and even competitors). The role of social
capital and networking cannot, therefore, be overestimated.
Leitch and Harrison (2008) review the agenda for research in entrepreneurial learning.
Whilst they highlight that organisational learning research is “burgeoning” (p3), there is little
research into entrepreneurial learning, and they make a most valid point in that, “progress in
research on entrepreneurial learning will be achieved better through a robust focus on context-of-
application-based problems than attempts to develop grandiose integrative theories within a single
9
powerful paradigm” (ibid, p. 5). Our model of New Venture Based Learning does not seek in any
way to be a “grandiose integrative theor[y]” (ibid, p. 5), but rather is very much a practice-based,
experiential model of entrepreneurial learning in the context of an individual who starts up their
own new venture (as an entrepreneur), whilst also participating in an uber-experiential Masters
programme which aims to enhance the effectiveness of their entrepreneurial learning to contribute
to the successful future performance of their venture. Indeed, Leitch and Harrison (2008: 4), in
summarising the work of Eliasson (1996, 1998), suggest that entrepreneurs must learn in order to
build their capacity in a number of key competences – “awareness, resource acquisition, and
management” – to “create (innovation), recognize (risk capital provision, diffuse (spillovers) and
successfully exploit (receiver competence)”. It is abundantly clear that such key competences are
central to any entrepreneur who is ‘learning by doing’. Entrepreneurial learning can be ‘enhanced
through peripheral vision’, which is “a cultivated disposition for attending to the hidden, the
obscured and overlooked”, which “can be systematically cultivated through education strategies that
deliberately direct attention away from the visible gestalt figures of comprehension to the unformed
and the seemingly invisible background against which figure, identity and meaning emerge”, or a
“negative pedagogy” (Chia, 2008, p. 27).
Politis (2008, p. 44-45) makes a clear distinction between entrepreneurial knowledge, and
the experiential learning that creates such knowledge, and indeed, highlights, a lack of research on
“how entrepreneurs experience, through experience, develop entrepreneurial knowledge that
enables them to recognize and act on entrepreneurial opportunities and to organize and manage new
ventures.” While Politis (2008) is inevitably (as are we) influenced by Kolb (1984)’s model of
reflective learning and ‘experiential acquired knowledge’ – indeed, many of us are thus members of
the Kolbian school of thought – she does make it clear that,
“attempts to stimulate entrepreneurial activities through formal training and education is not likely to have an
strong and direct impact on the development of entrepreneurial knowledge … [but] should primarily focus on
developing creativity, critical thinking and reflection among individuals, which in turn can have a profound
influence on both their motivation and ability to develop entrepreneurial knowledge throughout their
professional lives” (Politis, 2008, p. 65).
Whilst it is beyond the scope of this paper to explain in detail Politis’s model (Politis, 2008),
it is nonetheless a most useful conceptualisation of the ‘dynamic’ process of entrepreneurial
learning, “an experiential process where enterprising individuals continuously develop their
entrepreneurial knowledge throughout their professional lives” (Politis, 2008, p. 45). In this process,
Politis (2008) highlights the importance of entrepreneurial knowledge itself (recognising
opportunities in a Kirznerian sense (e.g. Kirzner, 1997), but also ‘coping with the liabilities of
10
newness, i.e. risk (Knight, 1921)), career experience (which is about ‘learning by doing’ whether it
is prior new venture creation experience, management or sectoral experience), as well as a number
of key “factors influencing the transformation process.”
Whilst Politis’s (2008) model is highly informative, and indeed is Kolb’s (1984) seminal
reflective learning model, what we have developed is a model which brings together the process of
entrepreneurial learning (e.g. Politis, 2008), reflective learning (Kolb, 1984), in parallel with an
individual creating a new venture whilst also participating in a Masters level programme. New
Venture Based Learning is, therefore, about the entrepreneurial learning process (Politis, 2008), not
just via an ’exogenous’ source (Easterby-Smith, 2008) (via tutors and mentors) but also through
‘endogenous’ learning (ibid) as student-entrepreneurs engage in reflective learning (Kolb, 1984) on
their new venture in the learning environment of a university. New Venture Based Learning is,
therefore, a form of entrepreneurial learning which provides a symbiotic relationship between
endogenous and exogenous sources of entrepreneurial knowledge, experience, or the
entrepreneurial process itself. Thus, we distinguish ‘pedagogic’ (through the classroom)
entrepreneurial learning from new venture based – through actually starting and running a new
venture – entrepreneurial learning. It is also possible to conceptualise ‘pedagogic’ entrepreneurial
learning as essentially enhancing the Bourdieuan ‘institutionalised cultural capital’ (i.e. education)
of the entrepreneur (Bourdieu, 1986; Elam 2008), whilst the ‘social capital’ based entrepreneurial
learning operates through exogenous networking with individuals from outside the firm. A third
form is straightforward ‘cultural capital’ based entrepreneurial learning (cultural capital
encompassing ideas and experience), where the entrepreneur learns from his or her own experience
(as Politis, 2008, theorises).
Essentially, as Bourdieu considered the forms of capital as bridging a nexus between society
(social, material, cultural aspects), on the one hand, and the individual (economic, social, cultural
and symbolic capital
3
), on the other, (Bourdieu, 1986; Elam, 2008), then our fusing of
entrepreneurial learning and the forms of capital goes a long way to explaining how this process can
influence an individual entrepreneur’s Bourdieuan capital reserves. There is also convertibility,
according to Bourdieu, where economic capital buys cultural capital such as education (Elam,
2008).
That gives weight to the notion that entrepreneurial learning (as with learning per se) is a
“socio-cultural practice rather than an individual cognitive activity” (McHenry, 2008: 76), and:
“the social-cultural perspective of learning differs from the individualist approach as it emphasises that human
beings are social, interactive individuals and that learning is embedded in practice” (ibid, p. 80).
3
This is a little more esoteric but essentially Elam (2008) explains it as, “legitimacy, social approval, prestige, status, symbolic
power”, which in itself can lead to “structured social action.”
11
Therefore, interaction and practice-embedded learning (McHenry, 2008) in the process of
entrepreneurial learning (Politis, 2008) are central to how New Venture Based Learning can be
operationalised. Traditionally, university programmes in entrepreneurship and small business are
simply too focused on “pre-start” to enable effective entrepreneurial learning. Indeed, as Akola and
Heinonen (2006) suggest, such educational approaches may be “artificial” and, in some cases,
“useless” or, as Hindle (2007), following Birch, argues, there is, instead, a need for entrepreneurial
apprenticeships. We would argue that any such Masters programmes should not be called
“Entrepreneurship” or “New Venture Creation”, but rather “Business Planning”. As important as
pre-start business planning is to the survival of the new venture (Castrogiovanni, 1996), we reiterate
that advice and mentoring is effective to the actual operation of the business (Deakins et al, 1998;
Gartner et al, 1999; BCC, 2008). And, since one should match the type of assessment to learning
outcomes (Pittaway et al, 2009), assessment in NVBL is, necessarily, intimately connected to
implementing the new venture.
The three broad approaches to enterprise education – i.e. (i) lectures, (ii) experiential
learning through role play/drama and simulation & gaming, and (iii) running a genuine business –
vary in the degree to which they are experiential, reflective and, therefore, effective for promoting
entrepreneurial learning. It is not only the two UK examples we outlined earlier that involve
students starting a real life business. Fisher et al (2008: 313) remind us that Babson College
“require students to start up and run actual businesses”, which are closed down at the end of the
course. In a sense then, these are disposable businesses.
Indeed, Fisher et al (2008: 315) also evaluate two Undergraduate classes at what they term,
“the far end of the experiential spectrum”, where “students start and run actual businesses, and
receive funds from and report to real investors”. Hence, we have developed Figure 1, to illustrate
this “experiential spectrum” to which Fisher et al are implicitly referring. In other words, we can do
the lectures, which can become slightly more interactive, particularly by including cases. But these
still are “not likely to have a strong and direct impact on the development of entrepreneurial
knowledge” (Politis, 2008: 65).
However, moving rightwards, towards the uber-experiential, role plays/drama and
simulation and gaming do start to provide the “creativity, critical thinking and reflection among
individuals”, which Politis (2008: 65) argues will then “have a profound influence on both their
motivation and ability to develop entrepreneurial knowledge throughout their professional lives,”
Finally, New Venture Based Learning is bound to have even more significant impacts upon
individuals’ motivation – and their ability – to enhance their entrepreneurial knowledge (Fisher et
al, 2008; Politis, 2008).
12
Figure 1: The Spectrum of Experiential Entrepreneurial Learning in Enterprise Education:
From Lectures to New Venture Based Learning
Non-experiential Uber-experiential (Real
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 life)
Teaching: Lectures Case Role Simulation Disposable New Venture
Studies Play/Drama & Gaming* Firms** Creation
Assessment: Assignments Reflection Mentoring
Enterprise
Education only ?
(pre-start)
===============================================================================
New Venture
Based Learning
( EE + NVC)
===============================================================================
New Venture
Creation only
* networking, business games, etc
** real firms that are started up (e.g. at Babson) but are closed down at the end of the course.
Source: developed by authors (after Fisher et al, 2008)
A learning-by-doing, reflective, and experiential approach is clearly so much more
appropriate (Cope and Watts, 2000; Cope, 2005), while maintaining academic and pedagogical
rigour, i.e. students should be able to apply enterprise theory, research findings, and practice to
starting their new venture (Fiet, 2001a, 2001b). Contemporary enterprise education does, therefore,
go as far as highly experiential simulation and gaming. In most cases, this stops at simulation and
gaming; in others, such as at Babson College, real firms are started but these are disposable
because, in essence, they are not owned by the students and when they are closed down any surplus
is donated to charity. Such philanthropy clearly has benefits for the charities concerned. On the
other hand, starting a genuine new business, which is owned by the student/entrepreneur will
change their behaviour and clearly enhance their entrepreneurial learning. For most universities,
there is a huge chasm between enterprise education and real life new venture creation. New Venture
Based Learning (indicated in bold on Figure 1) attempts to bridge this chasm by offering students
the support and mentoring to start their own business, while receiving enterprise education (and a
Masters level qualification) which is directly relevant to that new venture. It is thus uber-
experiential.
13
Summary and Recommendations
In this paper we have presented the practical and theoretical rationale for the development of
a new pedagogical model of New Venture Based Learning by answering the research question: Can
enterprise educators more effectively facilitate entrepreneurial learning for students while they are
in the process of starting a new venture, rather than in a ‘pre-start’ educational intervention? In so
doing, we have made a number of key contributions to the debate on entrepreneurial learning in the
university context, which we highlight below.
First, it has become clear that much enterprise education provision in the UK (with a few
notable exceptions) is for ‘thinkers’, not doers. Such programmes focus upon “pre-start” and
“thinking of starting a business” and usually require the submission of a business plan. It is plainly
obvious that this process does not mean that students will make the active step of actually starting a
new venture – and, even if they do, there will be no support for them from their former institutions.
Although UK enterprise education has been mapped, good practice has been documented, and the
most effective pedagogical approaches have been articulated, predominantly through the sterling
efforts of the National Council of Graduate Entrepreneurship, notably the prolific Professor Paul
Hannon, and associates (Hannon et al, 2006; Botham and Mason, 2007; Herrmann et al, 2008), we
have highlighted major concerns about the nature of the UK’s Masters level enterprise education
provision. It appears, based on our analysis above, that most UK Masters level enterprise education
provision is simply not practise-based enough in order to provide the entrepreneurial learning,
effective pedagogy and ‘entrepreneurial outcomes’ (Henry et al, 2003; Hannon, 2007; Pittaway and
Cope, 2007b; Pittaway and Hannon, 2008) that are required.
Second, drawing upon the entrepreneurial learning and experiential learning literature (Kolb,
1984; Cope and Watts, 2000; J ones-Evans et al, 2000; Rae and Carswell, 2000; Pittaway and Cope,
2007; Chia, 2008; Easterby-Smith, 2008; Leitch and Harrison, 2008; McHenry, 2008; Politis,
2008), we have argued that effective entrepreneurial learning can also occur within a university
context where a student is involved concurrently in creating a new venture. We have supported this
argument by highlighting the connection between both pre-start business planning (Castrogiovanni,
1996) and advice and mentoring while the business is operating (Deakins et al, 1998; Gartner et al,
1999l BCC, 2008), on the one hand, and the effective implementation of a new venture and,
therefore, its optimal survival and growth prospects, on the other. Indeed, “some kind of
apprenticeship” (Aronsson, 2004: 289; Hindle, 2007) can provide effective entrepreneurial learning.
In particular, Politis’s (2008) process model is of importance in that it conceptualises the factors
that are involved in the entrepreneurial learning process in which experience is converted into
entrepreneurial knowledge.
14
Third, we have argued that through real-life experiential learning and new venture based
learning (i.e. the process of starting a new venture), the student/entrepreneur can enhance his or her
prospects of being more successful, and growing the firm (or at least surviving in its early years as
it seeks stability). Mentoring can contribute to entrepreneurial learning in the new venture’s
‘internal processes’ (endogenous) and ‘outside the boundaries’ of the firm (exogenous) (Easterby-
Smith, 2008). Our model is a a practice-based, experiential model of entrepreneurial learning in the
context of an individual who starts up their own new venture (as an entrepreneur), whilst also
participating in an uber-experiential Masters programme which aims – for example, through, given
the necessity of connecting assessment to learning outcomes (Pittaway et al, 2009), linking
assessment directly to the new venture – to enhance the effectiveness of their entrepreneurial
learning to contribute to the successful future performance of their venture. As such, it would
provide entrepreneurial learning and mentoring for people concurrently starting up a new venture
and there will be active engagement between the student, the tutors and the mentors to ensure
optimal entrepreneurial strategising and implementation of the business plan for the new venture.
Fourth, we have distinguished ‘pedagogic’ (through the classroom) entrepreneurial learning
from new venture based – through actually starting and running a new venture – entrepreneurial
learning. Indeed, we have considered the relevance of Bourdieu’s forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986;
Elam 2008) to the entrepreneurial process and have emphasised the importance of understanding
entrepreneurial learning as a process that essentially relies upon socio-cultural capital (supported by
McHenry, 2008: 76). Therefore, interaction and practice-embedded learning (McHenry, 2008) in
the process of entrepreneurial learning (Politis, 2008) are central to how New Venture Based
Learning can be operationalised.
Fifth and finally, we have explained the different approaches to enterprise education on a
spectrum of experiential learning (cf Fisher, 2008). The three broad approaches – lectures; role
play/drama and simulation & gaming; and running a genuine business – vary in the degree to which
they are experiential, reflective and, therefore, effective for promoting entrepreneurial learning. We
believe that our uber-experiential approach is the most effective in impacting upon individuals’
motivation – and their ability – to enhance their entrepreneurial knowledge (Fisher et al, 2008;
Politis, 2008). Whilst contemporary enterprise education in the UK does, therefore, go as far as
highly experiential simulation and gaming, this is where it tends to stop. Even though Babson
College in the US encourages its first year students to start businesses, these are essentially
‘disposable’ as, in essence, they are not owned by the students and at the end of the course they are
terminated with any surplus donated to charity – but its Foundation for Management Excellence
course is highly innovative and experiential.
15
This model is part of the innovative pedagogy strand of the ELVIS model
4
, building on the
100 per cent embedded curriculum model at Queen’s University Belfast in the degree pathway of
22,000 students. The university’s model was benchmarked in a Directorate General (DG) Enterprise
report as a best practice curriculum model (European Commission, 2008). Enterprise is embedded
within existing modules in 67 non-business disciplines at the University. The enterprise for life
model has a focus on students going through the entrepreneurial process of creating, innovating and
executing – with students given the choice to focus on starting their own business, social enterprise
or intrapreneurial project in the corporate setting. There is an opportunity for students to learn by
having an opportunity to implement their innovation through developing their own business. The
difference from Babson College type models is the focus on learning, as well as business success; at
Babson, students are given poor marks if they do not raise venture capital (which is very tied to
American culture). As we believe that serial entrepreneurs have to learn from failure, our pedagogy
– whilst aiming for success – allows students to apply the Kolb model (plan, do, and reflect) and to
learn from failure, as well as success. It should not be surprising to the reader that the key
recommendation emerging from this paper is that we would encourage universities not only in the
UK but in other parts of Europe (and elsewhere) to introduce exploratory programmes that
implement the New Venture Based Learning model. At Queen’s University Belfast, we are in the
process of validating a Masters programme in New Venture Creation for commencement in
September 2009. Discussions between the university’s Regional Office and Queen’s University
Management School have identified the critical need for a Masters-level programme which provides
practical and academic support to graduates who have a viable idea with growth potential over the
first year that they create and grow their new venture. The primary rationale for this new
programme is, therefore, to meet an economic and social need within Northern Ireland for focused,
practice-oriented provision of postgraduate enterprise education for graduates who have a viable
business idea with growth potential. The MSc New Venture Creation builds on activity at the
Undergraduate and Postgraduate level to enable students to develop the capacity to apply their
project practically. The MSc New Venture Creation is in line with the regional development
agency, Invest NI’s, aim to create new ventures with high growth potential. We anticipate that
students will have started implementing their new venture by the time they begin the course or, if
not, within the first few weeks. In some cases, they will not be trading – but most should at least be
looking for their first customer(s) and some may even have successfully made the first sale. Our
definition of start up is that students will have registered the business whether they are actively
looking for customers at that stage or not.
4
The acronym ELVIS refers to Embedding Enterprise; Lifelong learning skill system; Value all resources; Innovative teaching
strategies/Institutional support; and Student centred with Alumni.
16
There are two potential types of students on this programme, both of whose needs will be
catered for effectively through the provision of mentors and other support:
(i) those who are ready to trade, who may have ideas which are low growth, relatively low
(or medium) risk, low entry barriers (e.g. funding requirements), and are near to market; and
(ii) those who will be non-trading for some time, who have a high-growth potential, distant
from market, high risk, and may be developing a prototype or other technology which means
they may not be able to start trading during the MSc.
Mentors and the Course Director will monitor the speed and robustness of the development
or implementation of the new venture (through the portfolio of evidence and notes from mentor-
student meetings): although not a formal part of the assessment of this MSc, such monitoring is
necessary to ensure students can progress the implementation of their new venture at a satisfactory
speed, and that developmental issues or barriers can be identified by an “early warning system” and
resolved.
In the first semester, three modules will run concurrently, the first of which introduces
students to the concepts and practicalities of entrepreneurship and more specifically to the model of
New Venture Based Learning applied within the MSc New Venture Creation. At the same time, in a
module on Entrepreneurial Strategy and Planning, students will gain the ability to enhance and
develop their idea into a more strategic vehicle for the future development and growth of the
business. The third module in the first semester will focus on Entrepreneurial Marketing & Sales,
and hence students will gain the ability to undertake sales and marketing activities in an
entrepreneurial way, which builds upon the existing idea.
Semester two involves three further concurrent modules. The first is on Entrepreneurial
Finance, giving students the ability to obtain finance and financially manage the business. The
second focuses on Innovation, i.e. the ability to be innovative to grow the new venture. The third
focuses on Leadership and Management, hence providing the ability to lead and manage the new
venture in a strategic and entrepreneurial manner. Finally, students will undertake a Strategic
Review of their business. Throughout all modules, students will be mentored and assessed on that
particular functional aspect of their new venture.
At the end of the degree course, the ‘Project’ – which is not a dissertation in the traditional
sense due to its experiential, reflective and New Venture Based Learning approach – is a Strategic
Review of students’ experience over the course, both of the pre-start activity, the process of starting
the business and beginning to trade. Students are required to write a 15,000 word (minimum)
reflective document: a Strategic Review of how successful or otherwise their strategy has been over
the first year. This Strategic Review is not assessed on how successful the business has been in its
first year as it is often the most difficult for many businesses. The Strategic Review will vary
17
depending on the type of student and how near/distant from market their idea is; level of funding
required, risk, and growth potential. Furthermore, it is an opportunity for some students to review
the implications of taking their idea to market. Indeed, while some students may have a real
business at the end of this process (which may or may not be trading), others may rather have a
refined set of ideas.
Whatever the outcome, it is clear that the uber-experiential pedagogical model of New
Venture Based Learning can make a major difference to the entrepreneurial learning, and survival
and growth prospects of the students’ new venture.
Author Biographies
David Gibson is a Senior Teaching Fellow at Queen’s University Belfast. He is responsible
for the development and implementation of an Enterprise Curriculum model which is embedded
within all disciplinary areas. He is the only national Teaching Fellow in enterprise education in the
UK and his book “The Efactor” is now used at over 150 Universities worldwide as a core text. His
work has been recognized internationally as best practice by the EU in December 2008. He is now
an International key note speaker on Enterprise Education issues and leads all International
Enterprise Education projects at Queen’s. David is also a board member of the UK Enterprise
Educators Board and a serial Entrepreneur.
Dr Jonathan M. Scott teaches innovation management and new venture creation at
Queen’s University Belfast; and is a Visiting Research Fellow at TSE Entre, Turku School of
Economics, Finland in summer 2009. He has collaborated on over 20 research projects on enterprise
education, innovation, and small businesses funded by public sector clients. He has co-authored
papers in journals such as International Small Business Journal and Environment and Planning C,
and he is a member of the editorial review board of Gender in Management: an International
Journal.
Aisling Harkin delivers enterprise education to a diverse blend of students from Arts,
Humanities, Social Sciences, and Science, Engineering and Technology disciplines. She assists in
co-ordinating a range of programmes and events to promote entrepreneurship within Queen’s, in
addition to supporting the university Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) team. Her career to date in
the higher education sector spans three years and she has had the opportunity to work on the
Queen’s-Shenzhen J oint University Foundation in Management Program in China, as well as
participate on the Babson Symposium for global Entrepreneurship Educators hailing from around
the globe. Also, Aisling is finishing her doctorate on high growth firms within Northern Ireland.
18
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Professor J ohn Thompson of the University of Huddersfield (External
Validator), Dr Nola Hewitt-Dundas, Dr Karen King, Mr J ames Campbell, and Mrs Tracy Andrew
for their advice and support in the process of validating the MSc programme and, therefore, in the
development of our pedagogical model of New Venture Based Learning. In addition, we wish to
acknowledge the support of colleagues in Research & Regional Services and in Queen’s University
Management School – in particular, the experts in entrepreneurial learning, Professor Richard T.
Harrison and Dr Claire M. Leitch.
Bibliography
Akola, E. and Heinonen, J . (2006) ‘How to Support Learning of Entrepreneurs? A Study of
Training Programmes for Entrepreneurs in Five European Countries’, RENT XX conference,
Brussels, November.
Anderson, A., Park, J . and J ack, S. (2007) “Entrepreneurial social capital: Conceptualizing
social capital in new high-tech firms”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.
245-272.
Aronsson, M. (2004) ‘Education matters – but does entrepreneurship education? An
interview with David Birch’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3): 289-292.
Béchard, J -P. and Grégoire, D. (2005) “Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The
Case of Higher Education”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1): 22–43.
Bennett R.J . and Robson, P.J .A. (2004) ‘The role of trust and contract in the supply of
business advice’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28: 471-488.
Bennett, R.J . (2008) “SME policy support in Britain since the 1990s: what have we learnt?”,
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 26(2) 375–397.
Birch, D. (1979) The job generation process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Program in
Neighborhood and Regional Change.
Blackburn, R. and Smallbone, D. (2008) ‘Researching small firms and entrepreneurship in
the UK: Developments and distinctiveness’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(2): 267–
288.
Botham, R. and Mason, C. (2007) Good Practice in Enterprise Development in UK Higher
Education, Research Report 004/2007, Birmingham: National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) 'The forms of capital', in Richardson, J and Westport, CT (Eds)
Handbook of Theory and Practice in the Sociology of Education, Greenwood Press: Westport CT.
Bridge, S. and McGowan, P. (2007) Relating Entrepreneurship Education to the Level of
Entrepreneurship in a Population, NCGE Working Paper, 027/2007, Birmingham: NCGE.
British Chambers of Commerce (2008) Growing Pains: What is Holding SMEs Back?,
British Chambers of Commerce: London.
Carey, C.A., Smith, K. and Martin, L. (2007) “Supporting enterprise educators; how to
promote enterprise in new areas”, Paper presented at the 30th Institute for Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Conference, Glasgow, November.
Casson, M. and Della Giusta, M. (2007) “Entrepreneurship and social capital: Analysing the
impact of social networks on entrepreneurial activity from a rational action perspective”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3: 220-244.
Castrogiovanni, G.J . (1996) ‘Pre-startup planning and the survival of new small businesses:
Theoretical linkages’, Journal of Management, 22(6): 801-823.
19
Chia, R. (2008) ‘Enhancing entrepreneurial learning through peripheral vision’, in Harrison,
R.T. and Leitch, C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Applications,
Routledge, London: 27-43.
Churchill, N. and Lewis, V. (1983) ‘The Five Stages of Small Business Growth’, Harvard
Business Review, May-J une: 30-50.
Cope, J . (2005) ‘Toward a Dynamic Learning Perspective of Entrepreneurship’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29 (4): 373 – 397.
Cope, J . and Watts, G. (2000) ‘Learning by doing: an exploration of critical incidents and
reflection in entrepreneurial learning’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, 6 (3): 104-24.
Dainow, W. (1986) “Training and Education of Entrepreneurs: The Current State of the
Literature”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 3(4): 10-23.
Deakins, D., Graham, L., Sullivan, R. and Whittam, G. (1998) ‘New venture support: an
analysis of mentoring support for new and early stage entrepreneurs’, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, 5(2): 151-161.
Easterby-Smith, M. (2008) ‘Preface: A conversation between entrepreneurship and
organisational learning’, in Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning:
Conceptual Frameworks and Applications, Routledge, London,. ix-xxii
Elam, A.B. (2008) Gender and Entrepreneurship: A Multilevel Theory and Analysis,
Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.
Eliasson, G. (1996) Firm Objectives, Control and Organization, Kluwer: Boston. (cited by
Leitch and Harrison, 2008).
Eliasson, G. (1998) The Nature of Economic Change and Management in the Knowledge
Based Information Economy, working paper, Department of Industrial Economics and
Management, KTH Stockholm. (cited by Leitch and Harrison, 2008).
European Commission (2008) Entrepreneurship in Higher Education, Especially within
Non-Business Studies: Final Report of the Expert Group, Brussels: Enterprise and Industry
Directorate-General, European Commission.
Fiet, J .O. (2001a) ‘The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship, Journal of Business
Venturing, 16 (1): 1-24.
Fiet, J .O. (2001b) ‘The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory’, Journal of Business
Venturing, 16 (2): 101-117.
Fisher, S.L., Graham, M.E. and Compeau, M. (2008) ‘Starting from scratch: Understanding
the learning outcomes of undergraduate entrepreneurship education’, in Harrison, R.T. and Leitch,
C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Applications, Routledge,
London, 313-337.
Fleischmann, F. (2008) “Entrepreneurship as a Way of Life”, key note address delivered at
the “Kongress Studieren – Forschen – Gründen’”, German Ministry of Economics and Technology,
Berlin, 1 October.
Gartner, W.B. (2008) “Entrepreneurship-Hop”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,
March: 361-368.
Gartner, W.B., Starr, J .A. and Bhat, S. (1999) ‘Predicting new venture survival’, Journal of
Business Venturing, 14 (2): 215-232.
Gibrat, R. (1931) Les Inégalités Économiques, Libraire de Recueil Sirez: Paris.
Gibson, D.G., Harkin, A. and Scott, J .M. (2009) ‘Towards a Pedagogical Model of New
Venture Based Learning’, paper presented to the European Foundation for Management
Development (efmd) Entrepreneurship Conference, Barcelona, February.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997) “Some Research Perspectives on
Entrepreneurial Education, Enterprise Education and Education for Small Business Management: a
Ten Year Review”, International Small Business Journal, 15(3): 56-77.
Greene F.J ., Mole, K. and Storey, D.J . (2008) Three Decades of Enterprise Culture?:
Entrepreneurship, Economic Regeneration and Public Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
20
Greiner, L. (1972) ‘Evolution and Revolution as Organisations Grow’, Harvard Business
Review, J uly-August, pp. 37-46.
Greve, A. and Salaff, J .W. (2003) “Social networks and entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Fall, pp. 1-22.
Hannon, P. (2004) “Philosophies of Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education and the
Challenges for Higher Education in the UK”, paper presented at the Institute for Small Business
Affairs 27th National Conference, Newcastle 2004.
Hannon, P. (2006) “Teaching Pigeons to Dance: Sense and Meaning in Entrepreneurship
Education”, Education + Training, 48(5): 296-308.
Hannon, P. (2007) “Enterprise for All? The Fragility of Enterprise Provision across
England’s HEIs”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2): 183-210.
Hannon, P. (2007) “Enterprise for All? The fragility of enterprise provision across
England’s HEIs”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 183-
210.
Hannon, P., Brooksbank, D., Gray, C., Fuller, T., J arvis, R, Keogh, B., Kirby, D. and Sear,
L. (2004) Making the Journey from Student to Entrepreneur: A Review of the Existing Research
into Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham: National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship.
Hannon, P., Scott, J .M., Martin, L., Reddy, S. and Millman, C. (2006) “The state of
education provision for enterprise and entrepreneurship: A mapping study of England’s HEIs”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 4: 41-72.
Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C.M. (Eds) (2008) Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual
Frameworks and Applications, Routledge: Abingdon.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2003) Entrepreneurship Education and Training,
Ashgate: Aldershot.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch. C. (2005a) “Entrepreneurship Education and Training: Can
Entrepreneurship Be Taught? Part I”, Education + Training, 47(2): 98-111.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch. C. (2005b) “Entrepreneurship Education and Training: Can
Entrepreneurship Be Taught? Part II”, Education + Training, 47(3): 158-169.
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) (1971) The Bolton Report: Report of the
Committee of Enquiry on Small Firms, HMSO: London.
Herrmann, K., Hannon, P., Cox, J ., Ternouth, P. and Crowley, T. (2008) Developing
Entrepreneurial Graduates: Putting entrepreneurship at the centre of higher education, Council for
Industry and Higher Education (CIHE), National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE)
and National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA): London.
Hindle, K. (2007) ‘Teaching entrepreneurship at University: from the wrong building to the
right philosophy’, in Fayolle, A. Ed Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Edward
Elgar: Cheltenham.
Hussain, J ., Matlay, H. and Scott, J .M. (2008) ‘Financial education and awareness in small
ethnic minority businesses’, Education + Training, 50 (8/9): 737-747.
Hytti U., and Kuopusjärvi, P. (2004) “Three Perspectives to Evaluating Entrepreneurship
Education: Evaluators, Programme Promoters and Policy Makers”, paper presented at the efmd 34th
EISB Conference, Turku, Finland.
J ack, S.L. and Anderson, A.R. (1999) ‘Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise
culture: Producing reflective practitioners’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, 5(3): 110-125.
J ones-Evans, D., Williams, W. and Deacon, J . (2000) ‘Developing entrepreneurial
graduates: an action-learning approach’, Education + Training, 42: 282-288.
Kirzner, I. (1997) ‘Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An
Austrian Approach’, Journal of Economic Literature 35: 60-85
Knight, F.H. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton Mifflin: New York.
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development, Prentice-Hall: New J ersey.
21
Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø. (1997) “Entrepreneurship Among Business Graduates: Does a
Major in Entrepreneurship Make a Difference?”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(4):
154-160.
Kuratko, D. (2005) “The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends,
and Challenges”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, September: 577-597.
Laukkanen, M. (2000) ‘Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship
education: creating micro-mechanisms for endogenous regional growth’, Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 12: 25-47.
Leitch, C. and Harrison, R.T. (1999) “A Process Model for Entrepreneurship Education and
Development”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 5(3): 83-109.
Leitch, C. and Harrison, R.T. (2008) “Entrepreneurial learning: a review and research
agenda”, in Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual Frameworks
and Applications, Routledge, London, pp. 3-23.
Little, B. (2006) Employability and Work-Based Learning, The Higher Education Academy:
York.
McMahon, R.G.P. (1998) Stage Models of SME Growth Reconsidered, School of
Commerce Research paper series, 98-5, The Flinders University of South Australia: Adelaide.
Macpherson, A. (2005) ‘Learning How to Grow: Resolving the Crisis of Knowing’,
Technovation, 25 (10), 1129-1139.
Mason, C., Carter, S. and Tagg, S. (2006) “The characteristics and performance of
businesses started by recent university graduates”, paper presented at 20th RENT Entrepreneurship
Conference, Brussels, Belgium.
McClelland, D. (1961) The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand, Princeton NJ .
McHenry, J . (2008) ‘The role and management of learning from experience in an
entrepreneurial context’, in Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning:
Conceptual Frameworks and Applications, Routledge, London,, pp. 72-91.
Mole, K., Hart, M., Roper, S. and Saal, D. (2008) ‘Differential gains from Business Link
support and advice: a treatment effects approach’, Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy, 26(2): 315-334.
Moreland, N. (2005) Work-Related Learning in Higher Education, The Higher Education
Academy: York.
Morgan, S. and Roberts, J . (1997) Accounting for the Growth of the ‘Firm’, paper prepared
for the Fifth Interdisciplinary Perspectives On Accounting Conference, Manchester, J uly 7-9.
Nabi, G. (2003) “Graduate employment and underemployment: opportunity for skill use and
career experiences amongst recent business graduates”, Education + Training, Vol. 45, No. 7, pp.
371-382.
Nabi, G., Holden, R. and Walmsley, A. (2006) “Graduate career-making and business start-
up: A literature review”, Education +Training, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 373-385.
National Audit Office (2006) Supporting Small Business, National Audit Office: London.
Neck, H. and Stoddard, D. (2006) “Babson College nominates The Foundation Management
Experience (FME) for USASBE’s Innovative Entrepreneurship Education Course”, Babson
College: Babson Park, MA.
Nikolou-Walker, E. (2008) The Expanded University: Work-based Learning and the
Economy, Pearson Education: Harlow.
Nixon, I., Smith, K., Stafford, R. and Camm, S. (2006) Work-Based Learning: Illuminating
the Higher Education Landscape, The Higher Education Academy: York.
NOP (2004) SBS Household Survey of Entrepreneurship 2003, NOP: London.
Pittaway, L.A. and Cope, J .P. (2007a) 'Simulating entrepreneurial learning: integrating
experiential and collaborative approaches to learning', Management Learning, vol 38(2), 211-233
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J . (2007b) “Entrepreneurship education – a systematic review of the
evidence”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 477-506.
22
Pittaway, L. and Hannon, P. (2008) “Institutional Strategies for Developing Enterprise
Education: a Review of Some Concepts and Models”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 15(1): 202-226.
Pittaway, L., Hannon, P., Gibb, A. and Thompson, J . (2009) "Assessment practice in
enterprise education", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 15 (1): 71-
93.
Plaschka, G. R. and H. P. Welsch (1990) “Emerging Structures in Entrepreneurship
Education: Curricular Designs and Strategies”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3): 55-
71.
Politis, D. (2005) , "The process of entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework",
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4): 399-424.
Politis, D. (2008) “The process of entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework”, in
Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C. (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and
Applications, Routledge, London, pp. 44-71.
Queen’s University Belfast (2009) Programme Evaluation Documentation: MSc New
Venture Creation, Queen’s University Belfast: Belfast.
Rae, D. (2005) ‘Mid-career entrepreneurial learning’, Education + Training, 47 (8/9): 562-
574.
Rae, D. (2007) “Connecting Enterprise and Graduate Employability: Challenges to the
Higher Education Culture and Curriculum?”, Education + Training, 49(8/9): 605-619.
Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2000) ‘Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial
learning: the development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning
experiences’, Education + Training, 42 (4/5): 220-227.
Richard, D. (2008) Small Business and Government: the Richard Report, Conservative
Party: London.
Richard, D., Connell, D., Ibbetson, P., Kestenbaum, J . and Richards, A. (2007) Richard
Review on Small Business & Government: Interim Report, Conservative Party: London.
Rosa, P. (2003) “Hardly likely to make the J apanese tremble: the businesses of recently
graduated university and college entrepreneurs”, International Small Business Journal, 21 (4): 435-
459.
Schumacher, E.E. (1974) Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered.
London: Abacus.
Schumpeter, J .A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press:
Cambridge MA.
Scott, J .M. and Irwin, D. (2009, in press) ‘Discouraged advisees? The influence of gender,
ethnicity, and education in the use of advice and finance by UK SMEs’, Environment and Planning
C: Government and Policy, 27 (1), forthcoming.
Scott, J .M., and Hussain, J . (2008) ‘Ownership succession and enterprise education in UK
ethnic minority family firms’, paper presented at the FBE 2008 Conference ‘Best Practices on
Family Business and Entrepreneurship Higher Education’, August 21-22, 2008, University of
J yväskylä, Finland.
Scott, J .M., Gibson, D.G., Harkin, A. (2009) ‘New Venture Based Learning in the Nordic
Context: A Pedagogy for High-Growth Venturing’, submitted to 20th Annual NFF Nordic
Academy of Management, Turku, Finland, August.
Scott, M. G. and Twomey, D. F. (1988) “The Long Term Supply of Entrepreneurs:
Students’ Career Aspirations in Relation to Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business
Management, 26(4): 5-12.
Smith, K. (2007) “Supporting E-Learning in Enterprise: The TE3 Project”, Education +
Training, 49(8/9): 656-670.
Solomon, G. (2006) ‘Are We Teaching Small Business Management to Entrepreneurs and
Entrepreneurship to Small Business Managers?’, United States Association for Small Business and
Entrepreneurship (USASBE), White Paper Series, USABE, Boca Raton, FL.
23
Solomon, G.T., Weaver, K.M. and Fernald, L.W. (1994) ‘A historical examination of small
business management and entrepreneurship pedagogy’, Simulation & Gaming, 25(3): 338-252.
Storey, D.J . (1994) Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge: London.
Van Auken, H., Fry, F.L. and Stephens, P. (2006) “The influence of role models on
entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 157-
167.
Vesper, K. and Gartner, W. (1997) “Measuring Progress in Entrepreneurship Education”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 403-421.
Welter, F. and Smallbone, D. (2006) “Exploring the role of trust in entrepreneurial activity”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, J uly, pp. 465-475.
24
doc_124571148.pdf