Description
The aim of the article is to present the literature review of the most important articles dedicated to the entrepreneurial education and published between January 2004 and April 2010 in the scientific journals belonging simultaneously to both the Social Science Citation Index and the Entrepreneurship Journals Rankings.
RESULTS OF THE SYSTEMATIC
LITERATURE REVIEW
ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP
AND ITS INFLUENCING FACTORS
Agnieszka Klucznik-Törö, PhD
McDaniel College (U.S) in Budapest,
and Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary
Abstract
The aim of the article is to present the literature review of the most im-
portant articles dedicated to the entrepreneurial education and published
between January 2004 and April 2010 in the scientific journals belonging
simultaneously to both the Social Science Citation Index and the Entrepre-
neurship Journals Rankings.
Research was focused on graduate entrepreneurship and employability.
The following results of the literature review were found as the most sur-
prising: the creation of a new firm is more widespread than the creation of
a new household or a baby born in society; those with full or part time job
are more likely to start their business than unemployed, housewives, reti-
rees, students; women are more likely to start solo-owned business, while
men are more likely to use teams; learning and incubation resources do not
correlate with an increase in attitudes towards self-employment and inten-
tions, whereas inspiration does.
There have been three research questions and they built an order of the
article:
1. How “the entrepreneurship” was defined?
2. Who can be “an entrepreneur”?
3. What are the main factors affecting entrepreneurial ability and hav-
ing a positive impact on the decision to start a new venture?
Key words: entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurship, systematic litera-
ture review, university graduates.
Introduction
Importance of entrepreneurship is linked with the fact that in times of
relatively high unemployment in most European countries, launching own
company by university graduates can give them an opportunity to pursue
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
58
own dreams and give a chance for income and professional development.
And since advanced education gives more chances for launching innovative
companies with fast-growth potential, university graduates entrepreneur-
ship seems to be especially desirable by economies
1
. What is more, creating
not any but innovative firms gives greater impact on economy and overall
employment (Fritsch, Schroeter 2008: 3)
2
.
Taking under consideration the outstanding importance of entrepreneur-
ial behaviour for individuals and contemporary economies as a whole, the
most important articles dedicated to entrepreneurship were investigated to
get a deeper insight into the subject.
Some pretty surprising research results were found such as:
1. The creation of a new firm is more widespread than the creation of
a new household or a baby born in society (US),
2. Those with full or part time job are more likely to start their busi-
ness than unemployed, housewives, retirees or students,
3. Women are more likely to start solo-owned business, while men
are more likely to use teams,
4. Learning and incubation of resources do not correlate with an
increase in attitudes towards self-employment and intentions,
whereas inspiration does.
The following article, however, is dedicated only to present the literature
review outcomes on one area of the examinations that is on the graduates
entrepreneurship and employability. To reach this point, however, deeper
understanding of entrepreneurship will be provided. Specifically answers
for the three questions will be given:
4. How “the entrepreneurship” was defined?
5. Who can be “an entrepreneur”?
6. What are the main factors affecting entrepreneurial ability and
having a positive impact on the decision to start a new venture?
1
Nevertheless, an impact of new business creation on employment can be, in some situations, also
negative – meaning that the new entries could also lead to a decline in employment (Fritsch, Schroeter
2008: 2). In such cases usually so-called “destructive creation” is blamed.
It is also worth emphasizing that students of higher education (HE) not necessarily launch high-tech
companies.
For example the survey organized among business management students in Germany and Austria
showed that students who intend to launch a new business almost exclusively think of service compa-
nies in low-tech areas (Luthje, Prugl 2006: 213).
2
Additionally, the employment effects of new business formation will probably be larger in high-den-
sity regions with a high productivity level and a large share of high-quality entries, abundant resources,
and a well-functioning innovation system. Contrary to high-density regions, the employment effect
will be much smaller or even negative in low-productivity regions which have a high share of low-qual-
ity entries, a scarcity of relevant resources, and a routinized technological regime. (Why does effect of
New business formation..? p. 5 and earlier).
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
59
Methodological clarifications
The method of the systematic literature review (SLR) on entrepreneurial
education was applied. The archetype came from the SLR method created
by L. Pittaway and J. Cope (Pittaway, Cope 2004: 479-510). However, since
the previous research results based on the examination of the articles from
years 1970-2004, the added value of the below review lies in the updating
of the Pittaway’s and Cope’s research with the newest publications. Con-
sequently, the review bases on articles published by scientific journals be-
tween January 2004 and April 2010 and included simultaneously in both the
Social Science Citation Index and in the Entrepreneurship Journals Rank-
ings (Katz 1991: 53-67; 2003: 295). In practice four journals were searched
through that is: Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Small Business Economics, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development.
Additionally, the valuable research results, which were published in other
publications, were also included in the review, but presented only in the
footnotes.
Besides systematic literature review method, the descriptive method was
also broadly applied.
The review was organised in the following way:
Table 1. Stages of the systematic literature review
Stages Description
1.
The researcher used entrepreneurship journal rankings to identify key journals
in the field.
2.
Collecting of journals included simultaneously in both the Social Science
Citation Index and in the Entrepreneurship Journals Rankings, that is:
– Journal of Business Venturing,
– Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
– Small Business Economics,
– Entrepreneurship and Regional Development.
3.
Decision about time range of the publications. Since SLR of L. Pittaway and
J. Cope covered years 1970-2004, the researcher decided to continue the review
from 2004 and to end in 2010.
4.
Setting criteria for acceptance or rejection of articles. The following words
were chosen:
– „entrepreneurship”,
– „entrepreneurialism”,
– „entrepreneurial education”,
– „entrepreneurship education”
– or entrepreneurial education (written according to the Boolean rules).
5.
Searching for the appearance of these words or string of the words within:
– titles of the articles,
– abstracts
– or as the key word(s).
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
60
6. Data base building consisting on the articles satisfying at least one of the set
conditions
3
.
7. Examination of the research main areas that is: 1. How “the entrepreneurship”
was defined? 2. Who can be “an entrepreneur”? 3. What are the main factors
affecting entrepreneurial ability and having a positive impact on the decision to
start a new venture?
8. Prescribing of the articles to the research areas and description.
3 There were 31 articles chosen for the below review while the original
SLR of L. Pittaway and J. Cope covered 27 articles.
1. How to understand “an entrepreneurship”?
The literature review proves that understanding of “entrepreneurship”
varies and there is no consensus between researchers in this respect.
The main focus might be on a dynamic process linking vision, change
and creation (Kuratko, The Emergence of Entrepreneurship, 2004: 578 with
reference to Kuratko & Hodgetts 2004: 30). It is also emphasised that en-
trepreneurship “requires an application of energy and passion towards the
creation and implementation of new ideas and creative solutions”.
It can be also understood as “the ability to discover, select, process, in-
terpret and use the necessary data to take decisions in an uncertain world
and then to exploit market opportunities” (Ferrante 2005: 169).
Definition of Ferrante coincides with Arenius’ and De Clercq’s, who de-
scribe entrepreneurship as an activity, which involves “the discovery, crea-
tion and exploitation of opportunities aimed at the introduction of, e.g., new
goods and services, new ways of organization, or new processes” (Aren-
ius and De Clercq 2005: 250 with reference to Venkataraman 1997; Shane,
Venkataraman 2000).
Besides various controversies around entrepreneurship as a teaching
subject, the literature review confirms that nowadays entrepreneurship is
recognised as a scientific discipline which can be learned (Kuratko 2004:
580 with reference to Drucker 1985; Gorman et al. 1997: 63)
4
.
3
This research phase was completed thanks to the professional IT tools delivered by publishers of the
journals for these kind of reviews.
4
Interesting definition comes also from Timmons (1994) who claims that entrepreneurship is “cre-
ating and building value from practically nothing. According to him entrepreneurship involves “the
definition, creation, and distribution of value and benefits to individuals, groups, organizations and
society.” Another worth noting description of entrepreneurship comes from Katz (2003, The Chrono-
logy…, p. 284 with the reference to his earlier work Katz, 1991c) in which entrepreneurship refers to
a collection of academic disciplines and specialties including entrepreneurship, new venture crea-
tion, entrepreneurial finance, small business, family business, free enterprise, private enterprise,
high-technology business, new product development, microenterprise development, applied economic
development, professional practice studies, women’s entrepreneurship, minority entrepreneurship and
ethnic entrepreneurship.
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
61
As far as definition of “an entrepreneur” is concerned, the presentation
by I. Verheul et al. (2005) seems to be comprehensive and sufficiently ex-
planatory. It refers to Vesper’s understanding of this term stressing different
types of entrepreneur rather than solving a problem: ‘‘What is an entrepre-
neur’’?” (Ingrid Verheul et al. 2005: 487). The proposed entrepreneurial
typology embraces a broad range of entrepreneurial behaviours. These ac-
tivities are not ranked, but instead acknowledged that different types of
entrepreneurial activity exist side by side.
Consequently, entrepreneur is a person possessing entrepreneurial abili-
ties and is often associated with a company owner or self-employed, however
in more broader sense it is also a person who launches new project or explores
market opportunities in some other way (Wennekers et al. 2005: 487).
Table 2. Vesper’s entrepreneurial typology
Name/ Type Entrepreneurial activity
Starter Enters an independent business by creating a new one
Acquirer Enters an independent business by acquiring an ongoing one
Runner Manages a small to medium business, Beyond start-up
Take-off artist Steers a company into a high-growth trajectory
Turnaround artist Saves a failing company
Innovator Makes something new happen that is not a company
Champion Supports innovator
Intrapreneur Takes initiative for business unit creation inside an established
business
Industry captain Runs a big business
Source: I. Verheul, L. Uhlaner, R. Thurik, “Business accomplishments, gender and
entrepreneurial self-image”, Verheul et al. 2005: 489.
Self-perception of entrepreneurs about being or nor an entrepreneur de-
pends to the great extend on the role which he/she pursues. For example
those reporting business accomplishments as:
– Business owners – owning the major part of a business,
– Founders – starting a business from a scratch,
– Runners – managing a SME, beyond start-up are most likely to per-
ceive themselves as entrepreneurs (Ingrid Verheul et al. 2005: 508).
It also turned out that, contrary to the expert panel study, those reporting
business accomplishments as Corporate Entrepreneurs that is:
– Intrapreneurs,
– Innovators,
– Champions
are less likely to perceive themselves as entrepreneurs (Verheul et al.
2005: 509).
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
62
In terms of a gender effect on entrepreneurial self-image, study clearly
demonstrate that even if performing a broad range of business accomplish-
ments, women are less likely than men to perceive themselves as entrepre-
neurs (Ingrid Verheul et al., p. 511).
Additionally, in the research of Arenius and Clark males were proved to
be more likely than females to be opportunity-minded (Arenius and Clark,
2005, Network-based approach, p. 261).
Interestingly, in the examination of Verheul et al. respondents with
a Bachelor’s degree and without a business degree are more likely to view
themselves as entrepreneurs than those with a Master or a business degree.
(Ingrid Verheul et al., p. 512).
2. What are the main factors affecting an
entrepreneurial ability?
Based on the Systematic Literature Review the main factors affecting
entrepreneurial ability and having a positive impact on the decision to start
a new venture were examined.
2.1. Certain personal characteristics
Some affective skills and traits seem to play especially important role in
entrepreneurship:
a) Creativity (Burke et al., 2002 with references to Torrance, 1962) –
or more precisely the creative skill to marshal needed resources
(Kurako 2004),
b) Imagination (Burke et al. 2002 with references to Shackle 1979),
c) Degree of risk aversion, or risk-taking (Verheul et al. 2005: 490
with references to Knight 1921/71; Cantillon 1931; Hull et al.
1980; Sexton and Bowman, 1985, 1986; Stewart et al. 1999; Be-
gley, 1995; Stewart and Roth, 2001) or, as Kuratko specifies “the
willingness to take calculated risks – in terms of time, equity, or
career” (Kurako 2004),
d) Alertness, which Burke et al. (2002 with references to Kirzner,
1973) links with the opportunity perception (Kirzner, 1979 [in:]
Verheul et al. 2005: 490), or “the vision to recognize opportunity
where others see chaos, contradiction, and confusion” (Kurako,
2004),
e) Motivation (McClelland 1965, 1971 [in:] Burke et al. 2002: 255),
which can be also connected with locus of control (Verheul et
al. 2005: 490 with references to Perry et al. 1986; Rotter, 1966),
need for achievement (Verheul et al. 2005: 490 with references
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
63
McCLelland, 1961; Perry et al., 1986), need for autonomy, initia-
tive, persistence (Verheul et al. 2005: 490)
5
,
f) Innovation (Verheul et al. 2005: 490 with reference to Schumpeter,
1934),
g) Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Wilson et al. 2007: 398-399)
6
.
2.1. Competences acquired through formal education/codified
knowledge
7
If somebody was to ask “what is the most important in boosting gradu-
ates entrepreneurship?”, many would believe it is money, others point out
culture, incubation of resources or support in generating ideas. Contrary to
these common believes, scientific examinations show something different
(Kim et al., 2006; Ferrante, 2005). Neither financial nor cultural capital
resources are necessary conditions for pursuing entrepreneurial entry. It
turned out that between three forms of resources, which were investigated,
namely: financial, human, and cultural capital, the potential entrepreneurs
gain significant advantages if they possess high level of human capital. Spe-
cifically: advanced education and managerial experience are strongly re-
lated with the entrepreneurial entry.
Research results confirm the positive link between entrepreneurial abil-
ity and the level of formal education.
Advanced education supports entrepreneurial entry through (Kim et al.,
2006):
1. The acquisition of skills – because students have more chances
to develop necessary skills for an entrepreneur, especially critical
thinking, communication and teamwork,
5
Additionally, according to Timmons “successful entrepreneurs share common attitudes and beha-
viours. They work hard and are driven by an intense commitment and determined perseverance; they
see the cup half full, rather than half empty; they strive for integrity; they burn with competitive desire
to excel and win; they are dissatisfied with the status quo and seek opportunities to improve almost
any situation they encounter; they use failure as a tool for learning and eschew perfection in favour
of effectiveness; and they believe they can personally make an enormous difference in the final out-
come of the ventures and their lives [...]. Entrepreneurs who succeed possess not only a creative and
innovative flair and other attitudes and behaviours but also solid general management skills, business
know-how, and sufficient contacts” Timmons (1994).
6
Other research also indicates the importance of entrepreneurship education at precollege levels in order
to increase both interest in the area and the level of overall preparedness (Dyer, 1994; Kourilsky, 1995).
7
Interesting conclusions from the research based on French and American students examination of
entrepreneurial perception comes from study of Elias G. Carayannis et al. (A cross-cultural learning
strategy, p. 757). As indicated, students „who do not recognize the positive impact that new ventures
can have on the economy and the society, then we must develop a mechanism for students to under-
stand, integrate and reinforce these positive values.”
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
64
2. Providing an access to certain social networks
8
, e.g., alumni net-
work,
3. Serve as a positive signal for nascent entrepreneurs when evaluated
by resource providers, e.g. business angels, venture capitalists,
4. Sorting people by ambition and assertiveness.
Promotion of entrepreneurial education is especially recommended in
low-income nations, besides improvements of confidence in property rights,
guarantee access to capital, safeguard safe economic conditions, develop
physical infrastructure (Wennekers et al. 2005: 306).
However, both too little and too much education discourages attempted
entrepreneurship. As Kim noted: “The acquisition of skills and credentials
may create valuable opportunities for individuals to work for others rather
than pursuing a new business venture” (Kim et al. 2006).
I. Grilo and J.M. Irigoyen complemented Kim’s examination results and
added that „relative to the intermediate level of education, belonging to the
higher or the lower education group has a positive impact on being self-em-
ployed. In other words, the relationship between education and self-employ-
ment seems to be U-shaped” (Grilo & Irigoyen, 2006).
2.2. On-the-job experience
Practical experiences seems to be strongly supportive for entrepreneurial
abilities (Mueller, 2006 with references to Shane, 2000; Shepherd and De-
Tienne, 2005; Wagner, 2004)
9
. Especially multiple forms of work experience
(Parker, 2006) is important for supporting nascent entrepreneurs. Without
sufficient work experience, individuals may encounter difficulties in taking
the first steps towards becoming an entrepreneur. In particular, researchers
focus on four types of work experience: general full-time work experience,
managerial experience, previous start-up experience, and current self-em-
ployment. Since managerial experience is usually out of touch for youth,
8
Kurato (Emergence of entrepreneurship…, p. 582) emphasizes the importance of education in the
entrepreneurial learning by recalling proposition of Ronstadt (1987) that “entrepreneurial programs
should be designed so that potential entrepreneurs are aware of barriers to initiating their entrepre-
neurial careers and can devise ways to overcome them. He proposed a two-continuum model of cur-
ricular design for entrepreneurship education. His “structured-unstructured” continuum addressed
various methods of transferring information and expertise. Among the methods he discussed were
lectures, case studies, and feasibility plans. He labeled his second continuum “entrepreneurial know-
how/entrepreneurial know-who.” This continuum represented the belief that success in entrepreneur-
ship is dependent not only on knowledge but the network of individuals with whom an entrepreneur
is connected. Ronstadt (1987) contended that an effective program must show students “how” to en-
trepreneurially behave and should also introduce them to people who might be able to facilitate their
success”.
9
Entrepreneurial perception is also heightened by Burke et al. 2002: 255; by greater access to in-
formation and an ability to analyse information. That is why business contacts (McGuire, 1976) and
education (Schultz, 1980) become important attributes.
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
65
work experience in form of internship and work projects are within their
reach and supportive for entrepreneurship.
It was also emphasised (Muller 2006: 55) that work and previous self-
employment experience is more important than formal education for the
likelihood of being a nascent entrepreneur. Particularly, “an entrepreneurial
attitude is related to working in a small firm with managerial responsibili-
ties and may substitute previous self-employment experience”.
Main benefits from work experience for the graduate entrepreneurship
are links to (Kim et al. 2006):
– Social networks,
– Market information,
– Capital,
– Potential customers and employees.
Besides the existing arguments in favour of work-entrepreneurship con-
nection, there are also some contrary opinions. For example findings of Aren-
ius and Clark showed that work status does not play an important role in the
perception of entrepreneurial opportunities (Arenius and Clark 2005: 261).
The competences and experience gained in the labour market can be
transformed into:
a) The ability to formulate an effective venture team (Kurako 2004),
b) Fundamental skill of building solid business plan (Kurako 2004),
c) Experience and knowledge of the market (Burke et al. 2002 with
references to Jovanovic, 1982).
2.3. Entrepreneurship programmes focused on inspiration
Another factor important for supporting graduates entrepreneurship are
entrepreneurial programmes, especially if they include an inspirational part.
Surely „knowledge and resources could increase the likelihood of success
for those who are going to start a new venture, but it turns out that it is
the inspiration that raises attitude, intention and increases the chances that
students will eventually set up their own businesses” (Souitaris et al. 2007).
It was confirmed while testing the effect of entrepreneurship programmes
on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention of science and engineering stu-
dents. The result showed that:
– „Students in the programme group increased their subjective norm
and intention towards self-employment, while students in the con-
trol group did not,
– Intention towards self-employment was not related to nascency at
the end of the programme (probably due to the time lag between
intention and action, especially in the case of young students).
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
66
– Inspiration (and not learning or resource-utilisation) was the en-
trepreneurial programme’s benefit related to the increase of sub-
jective norm and intention towards self-employment” (Souitaris et
al., 2007).
As V. Souitaris indicates that “the main practical implication for entrepre-
neurship programme developers is that if our aim is to increase the number
of entrepreneurs from the student population, then the inspirational part of
the programme has to be designed purposefully” (Souitaris et al., 2007).
2.4. Other factors playing a role in entrepreneurship
Besides entrepreneurship programmes focused on inspiration, on-the-
job experience, formal education and personal characteristics, there are
some other factors which might be decisive in making a decision to become
an entrepreneur. It could be:
1. Tacit knowledge embedded in the life environment (Ferrante 2005:
169),
2. Social capital, especially social networks and contact to other en-
trepreneurs; it was confirmed (Muller 2006: 55-56; Davidsson and
Honig 2003; Minniti 2004, 2005; Singh et al., 1999 [in:] Muller,
2006) that individuals are embedded in their local entrepreneur-
ial environment which influences an individual especially at the
beginning of the decision making process about whether to start
their own business. However, once the entrepreneurial desire is
established, the importance of role models decreases.
3. Availability of financial capital or individual wealth (Kim et al.
2007; Muller, 2006 with references to Dunn and Hotz-Eakin, 2000;
Evans and Jovanovich, 1989), although the research results indi-
cate, what was already pointed out, that financial assets are less
important for nascent entrepreneurs than other resources (Muller
2006: 56; Kim et al. 2007),
4. Expected profit and success (Muller 2006: 41),
5. An economic environment (Fritsch, Schroeter 2008: 1).
3. Summary
Understanding of “entrepreneurship” varies but in most cases the term
is defined as a dynamic process embracing opportunity recognition and its
exploitation, which requires application of resources.
Entrepreneurs can be perceived as those engaged in various types of en-
trepreneurial activities – starting from entering an independent business by
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
67
creating the new one and finishing with intrapraneurs, who takes initiative
for business unit creation inside an established firm.
The following factors seem to play the most important role in affect-
ing an entrepreneurial ability: 1) Certain personal characteristics, 2) Com-
petences acquired through formal education, 3) On-the-job experience, 4)
Entrepreneurship programmes focused on inspiration, 5) Some other fac-
tors, e.g. social capital, especially contacts to other entrepreneurs, financial
resources, an economic environment.
References
1. Backes-Gellner, U., Werner, A. (2007), Entrepreneurial Signaling via Educa-
tion: A Success Factor in Innovative Start-Ups, Small Business Economics,
Vol. 29 No. 1/2, pp. 188.
2. Burt, R. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Har-
vard University Press, Cambridge.
3. Bandura, A. (1978), Reflections on Self-efficacy, Advances in Behavioral Re-
search and Therapy Vol. 1, pp. 237-269.
4. Begley, T.M. (1995), Using founder status, age of firm, and company growth
rate as the basis for distinguishing entrepreneurs from managers of smaller
businesses, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 249-263.
5. Cantillon, R. (1931), Essai sur La Nature du Commerce en General, translation
by H. Higgs (Ed.). MacMillan, London.
6. Carayannis, E.G., Evans, D., Hanson, M. (2003), A cross-cultural learning
strategy for entrepreneurship education, outline of key concepts and lessons
learned from a comparative study of entrepreneurship students in France and
the US, Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 757-771.
7. Cohen, W. M,. Levinthal, D.A (1990), Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspec-
tive on Learning and Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35,
pp. 128-152.
8. Drucker, P.F. (1985), Innovation and entrepreneurship. Harper & Row, New
York.
9. Dyer, W.G. Jr. (1994), Towards a theory of entrepreneurial careers, Entrepre-
neurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 7-21.
10. Evans, D., Hanson, M. (1999), Environmental contingencies in teaching entre-
preneurship: the case of France. ESCEM Working Paper.
11. Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., King, W. (1997), Some research perspectives on en-
trepreneurship education, enterprise education, and education for small busi-
ness management: A ten-year literature review, International Small Business
Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 56-77.
12. Ferrante, F. (2005), Revealing Entrepreneurial Talent, Small Business Eco-
nomics, Vol. 25 No. 2, p. 169.
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
68
13. Goedhuys, M., Sleuwaegen, L. (2000), Entrepreneurship and growth of entre-
preneurial firms in Coˆte d’Ivoire, The Journal of Development Studies, Vol.
36 No. 3, pp. 123-145.
14. Grilo, J., Irigoyen, J. M., Entrepreneurship in the EU: To Wish and not to be,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4, p. 314.
15. Hull, D., Bosley, J., Udell, G. (1980), Renewing the hunt for the heffalump:
identifying potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics, Journal
of Small Business Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, 11-18.
16. Katz, J.A. (1991), Endowed Positions: Entrepreneurship and Related Fields,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 53-67.
17. Kim, P.H., Aldrich, H.E., Keister, L.A. (2006), Access (Not) Denied: The Im-
pact of Financial, Human, and Cultural Capital on Entrepreneurial Entry in the
United States, Small Business Economics, Vol. 27 No. 1, p.5.
18. Katz, J.A. (2003), The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American en-
trepreneurship education 1876-1999, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 283-300.
19. Katz, J.A. (1991), The institution and infrastructure of entrepreneurship, En-
trepreneurship: Theory Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 85-102.
20. Kim, P., Aldrich, H.E., Keister, L.A. (2007), Access (Not) Denied: The Impact
of Financial, Human, and Cultural Capital on Entrepreneurial Entry in the
United States, Small Business Economics, Vol. 27, pp. 5-22.
21. Kirzner, I.M. (1979), Perception, Opportunity and Profit. University of Chi-
cago Press, Chicago.
22. Knight, F.H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
23. Kourilsky, M. (1995), Entrepreneurship Education: Opportunity in Search of
Curriculum, Business Education Forum, Vol. 50 No. 10, pp. 11-15.
24. Kuratko, D.F., Hodgetts, R.M. (2004), Entrepreneurship: Theory, process,
practice. OH: South-Western College Publishers, Mason.
25. McCLelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
26. Mintzberg, H. (2004), Managers not MBAs: a Hard Look at the Soft Practice
of Managing and Management Development. Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
27. Mueller, S.L., Thomas, A.S., Culture and Entrepreneurial Potential: a Nine
Country Study of Locus of Control and Innovativeness, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 1, p. 53.
28. Parker, S.C. (2006), Learning about the Unknown: How Fast do Entrepreneurs
Adjust Their Beliefs?, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
29. Perry, C., MacArthur, R., Meredith, G., Cunnington, B. (1986). Need for achieve-
ment and locus of control of Australian small business owner-managers and super-
entrepreneurs. International Small Business Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 55-64.
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
69
30. Pittaway, L., Cope, J. (2007), Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Review
Of The Evidence, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 479-510.
31. Ronstadt, R., Hornaday, J.A., Peterson, R., Vesper, K.H. (Eds.) (1986), Fron-
tiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Wellesly, MA, pp. 40-51.
32. Ronstadt, R. (1987), The educated entrepreneurs: A new era of entrepreneurial
education is beginning, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 37-53.
33. Rotter, J.B. (1966), Generalized expectancies for internal versus external con-
trol of reinforcement, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, Vol.
80, No. 1(609), pp. 1-28.
34. Shackle, G.L.S. (1979), Imagination and the Nature of Choice. Edinburgh Uni-
versity Press, Edinburgh.
35. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard Uni-
versity, Cambridge.
36. Sexton, D.L., Bowman, N. (1985), The entrepreneur: a capable executive and
more. J. Bus.Venturing 1 (1), pp. 129-140.
37. Sexton, D.L., Bowman, N. (1986), Validation of a personality index: compara-
tive entrepreneurial analysis of female entrepreneurs, managers, entrepreneur-
ship students and business students, in: Ronstadt, R., Hornaday, J.A., Peterson,
R., Vesper, K.H. (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson Col-
lege, Wellesly.
38. Shane, S., Venkataraman, S. (2000), The Promise of Entrepreneurship as
a Field of Research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 217-226.
39. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., Al-Laham, A., Do Entrepreneurship Programmes
Raise Entrepreneurial Intention of Science and Engineering Students? The Ef-
fect of Learning, Inspiration and Resources, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 567-587.
40. Stewart, W.H., Roth, P.L., (2001), Risk propensity differences between entre-
preneurs and managers: a meta-analysis review, Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, Vol. 86 No.1, pp. 145-153.
41. Stewart Jr., W.H., Watson, W.E., Carland, J.C., Carland, W. (1999), A proclivity
for entrepreneurship: a comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and
corporate managers, Journal of Business Venturing Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-214.
42. Solomon, G.T., Weaver, K.M., Fernald, L.W. (1994), A historical examination
of small business management and entrepreneurship pedagogy, Simul. Gam-
ing Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 338-352.
43. Timmons, J. (1994), New Venture Creation, 4th ed. Irwin.
44. Torrance, E.P. (1962), Guiding Creative Talent. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.
45. Wennekers S., van Wennekers, A., Thurik, R., Reynolds, P. (2005), Nascent
Entrepreneurship and the Level of Economic Development, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 24, pp. 293-309.
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
70
46. Venkataraman, S. (1997), The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Re-
search, in J.A. Katz (ed.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and
Growth, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 119-138.
47. Verheul, I., Uhlaner, L., Thurik, R. (2005). Business accomplishments, gender
and entrepreneurial self-image, Journal of Business Venturing 20, pp. 483-518.
48. Vesper, K.H. (1993), Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurial Studies
Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
doc_173536898.pdf
The aim of the article is to present the literature review of the most important articles dedicated to the entrepreneurial education and published between January 2004 and April 2010 in the scientific journals belonging simultaneously to both the Social Science Citation Index and the Entrepreneurship Journals Rankings.
RESULTS OF THE SYSTEMATIC
LITERATURE REVIEW
ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP
AND ITS INFLUENCING FACTORS
Agnieszka Klucznik-Törö, PhD
McDaniel College (U.S) in Budapest,
and Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary
Abstract
The aim of the article is to present the literature review of the most im-
portant articles dedicated to the entrepreneurial education and published
between January 2004 and April 2010 in the scientific journals belonging
simultaneously to both the Social Science Citation Index and the Entrepre-
neurship Journals Rankings.
Research was focused on graduate entrepreneurship and employability.
The following results of the literature review were found as the most sur-
prising: the creation of a new firm is more widespread than the creation of
a new household or a baby born in society; those with full or part time job
are more likely to start their business than unemployed, housewives, reti-
rees, students; women are more likely to start solo-owned business, while
men are more likely to use teams; learning and incubation resources do not
correlate with an increase in attitudes towards self-employment and inten-
tions, whereas inspiration does.
There have been three research questions and they built an order of the
article:
1. How “the entrepreneurship” was defined?
2. Who can be “an entrepreneur”?
3. What are the main factors affecting entrepreneurial ability and hav-
ing a positive impact on the decision to start a new venture?
Key words: entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurship, systematic litera-
ture review, university graduates.
Introduction
Importance of entrepreneurship is linked with the fact that in times of
relatively high unemployment in most European countries, launching own
company by university graduates can give them an opportunity to pursue
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
58
own dreams and give a chance for income and professional development.
And since advanced education gives more chances for launching innovative
companies with fast-growth potential, university graduates entrepreneur-
ship seems to be especially desirable by economies
1
. What is more, creating
not any but innovative firms gives greater impact on economy and overall
employment (Fritsch, Schroeter 2008: 3)
2
.
Taking under consideration the outstanding importance of entrepreneur-
ial behaviour for individuals and contemporary economies as a whole, the
most important articles dedicated to entrepreneurship were investigated to
get a deeper insight into the subject.
Some pretty surprising research results were found such as:
1. The creation of a new firm is more widespread than the creation of
a new household or a baby born in society (US),
2. Those with full or part time job are more likely to start their busi-
ness than unemployed, housewives, retirees or students,
3. Women are more likely to start solo-owned business, while men
are more likely to use teams,
4. Learning and incubation of resources do not correlate with an
increase in attitudes towards self-employment and intentions,
whereas inspiration does.
The following article, however, is dedicated only to present the literature
review outcomes on one area of the examinations that is on the graduates
entrepreneurship and employability. To reach this point, however, deeper
understanding of entrepreneurship will be provided. Specifically answers
for the three questions will be given:
4. How “the entrepreneurship” was defined?
5. Who can be “an entrepreneur”?
6. What are the main factors affecting entrepreneurial ability and
having a positive impact on the decision to start a new venture?
1
Nevertheless, an impact of new business creation on employment can be, in some situations, also
negative – meaning that the new entries could also lead to a decline in employment (Fritsch, Schroeter
2008: 2). In such cases usually so-called “destructive creation” is blamed.
It is also worth emphasizing that students of higher education (HE) not necessarily launch high-tech
companies.
For example the survey organized among business management students in Germany and Austria
showed that students who intend to launch a new business almost exclusively think of service compa-
nies in low-tech areas (Luthje, Prugl 2006: 213).
2
Additionally, the employment effects of new business formation will probably be larger in high-den-
sity regions with a high productivity level and a large share of high-quality entries, abundant resources,
and a well-functioning innovation system. Contrary to high-density regions, the employment effect
will be much smaller or even negative in low-productivity regions which have a high share of low-qual-
ity entries, a scarcity of relevant resources, and a routinized technological regime. (Why does effect of
New business formation..? p. 5 and earlier).
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
59
Methodological clarifications
The method of the systematic literature review (SLR) on entrepreneurial
education was applied. The archetype came from the SLR method created
by L. Pittaway and J. Cope (Pittaway, Cope 2004: 479-510). However, since
the previous research results based on the examination of the articles from
years 1970-2004, the added value of the below review lies in the updating
of the Pittaway’s and Cope’s research with the newest publications. Con-
sequently, the review bases on articles published by scientific journals be-
tween January 2004 and April 2010 and included simultaneously in both the
Social Science Citation Index and in the Entrepreneurship Journals Rank-
ings (Katz 1991: 53-67; 2003: 295). In practice four journals were searched
through that is: Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Small Business Economics, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development.
Additionally, the valuable research results, which were published in other
publications, were also included in the review, but presented only in the
footnotes.
Besides systematic literature review method, the descriptive method was
also broadly applied.
The review was organised in the following way:
Table 1. Stages of the systematic literature review
Stages Description
1.
The researcher used entrepreneurship journal rankings to identify key journals
in the field.
2.
Collecting of journals included simultaneously in both the Social Science
Citation Index and in the Entrepreneurship Journals Rankings, that is:
– Journal of Business Venturing,
– Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
– Small Business Economics,
– Entrepreneurship and Regional Development.
3.
Decision about time range of the publications. Since SLR of L. Pittaway and
J. Cope covered years 1970-2004, the researcher decided to continue the review
from 2004 and to end in 2010.
4.
Setting criteria for acceptance or rejection of articles. The following words
were chosen:
– „entrepreneurship”,
– „entrepreneurialism”,
– „entrepreneurial education”,
– „entrepreneurship education”
– or entrepreneurial education (written according to the Boolean rules).
5.
Searching for the appearance of these words or string of the words within:
– titles of the articles,
– abstracts
– or as the key word(s).
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
60
6. Data base building consisting on the articles satisfying at least one of the set
conditions
3
.
7. Examination of the research main areas that is: 1. How “the entrepreneurship”
was defined? 2. Who can be “an entrepreneur”? 3. What are the main factors
affecting entrepreneurial ability and having a positive impact on the decision to
start a new venture?
8. Prescribing of the articles to the research areas and description.
3 There were 31 articles chosen for the below review while the original
SLR of L. Pittaway and J. Cope covered 27 articles.
1. How to understand “an entrepreneurship”?
The literature review proves that understanding of “entrepreneurship”
varies and there is no consensus between researchers in this respect.
The main focus might be on a dynamic process linking vision, change
and creation (Kuratko, The Emergence of Entrepreneurship, 2004: 578 with
reference to Kuratko & Hodgetts 2004: 30). It is also emphasised that en-
trepreneurship “requires an application of energy and passion towards the
creation and implementation of new ideas and creative solutions”.
It can be also understood as “the ability to discover, select, process, in-
terpret and use the necessary data to take decisions in an uncertain world
and then to exploit market opportunities” (Ferrante 2005: 169).
Definition of Ferrante coincides with Arenius’ and De Clercq’s, who de-
scribe entrepreneurship as an activity, which involves “the discovery, crea-
tion and exploitation of opportunities aimed at the introduction of, e.g., new
goods and services, new ways of organization, or new processes” (Aren-
ius and De Clercq 2005: 250 with reference to Venkataraman 1997; Shane,
Venkataraman 2000).
Besides various controversies around entrepreneurship as a teaching
subject, the literature review confirms that nowadays entrepreneurship is
recognised as a scientific discipline which can be learned (Kuratko 2004:
580 with reference to Drucker 1985; Gorman et al. 1997: 63)
4
.
3
This research phase was completed thanks to the professional IT tools delivered by publishers of the
journals for these kind of reviews.
4
Interesting definition comes also from Timmons (1994) who claims that entrepreneurship is “cre-
ating and building value from practically nothing. According to him entrepreneurship involves “the
definition, creation, and distribution of value and benefits to individuals, groups, organizations and
society.” Another worth noting description of entrepreneurship comes from Katz (2003, The Chrono-
logy…, p. 284 with the reference to his earlier work Katz, 1991c) in which entrepreneurship refers to
a collection of academic disciplines and specialties including entrepreneurship, new venture crea-
tion, entrepreneurial finance, small business, family business, free enterprise, private enterprise,
high-technology business, new product development, microenterprise development, applied economic
development, professional practice studies, women’s entrepreneurship, minority entrepreneurship and
ethnic entrepreneurship.
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
61
As far as definition of “an entrepreneur” is concerned, the presentation
by I. Verheul et al. (2005) seems to be comprehensive and sufficiently ex-
planatory. It refers to Vesper’s understanding of this term stressing different
types of entrepreneur rather than solving a problem: ‘‘What is an entrepre-
neur’’?” (Ingrid Verheul et al. 2005: 487). The proposed entrepreneurial
typology embraces a broad range of entrepreneurial behaviours. These ac-
tivities are not ranked, but instead acknowledged that different types of
entrepreneurial activity exist side by side.
Consequently, entrepreneur is a person possessing entrepreneurial abili-
ties and is often associated with a company owner or self-employed, however
in more broader sense it is also a person who launches new project or explores
market opportunities in some other way (Wennekers et al. 2005: 487).
Table 2. Vesper’s entrepreneurial typology
Name/ Type Entrepreneurial activity
Starter Enters an independent business by creating a new one
Acquirer Enters an independent business by acquiring an ongoing one
Runner Manages a small to medium business, Beyond start-up
Take-off artist Steers a company into a high-growth trajectory
Turnaround artist Saves a failing company
Innovator Makes something new happen that is not a company
Champion Supports innovator
Intrapreneur Takes initiative for business unit creation inside an established
business
Industry captain Runs a big business
Source: I. Verheul, L. Uhlaner, R. Thurik, “Business accomplishments, gender and
entrepreneurial self-image”, Verheul et al. 2005: 489.
Self-perception of entrepreneurs about being or nor an entrepreneur de-
pends to the great extend on the role which he/she pursues. For example
those reporting business accomplishments as:
– Business owners – owning the major part of a business,
– Founders – starting a business from a scratch,
– Runners – managing a SME, beyond start-up are most likely to per-
ceive themselves as entrepreneurs (Ingrid Verheul et al. 2005: 508).
It also turned out that, contrary to the expert panel study, those reporting
business accomplishments as Corporate Entrepreneurs that is:
– Intrapreneurs,
– Innovators,
– Champions
are less likely to perceive themselves as entrepreneurs (Verheul et al.
2005: 509).
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
62
In terms of a gender effect on entrepreneurial self-image, study clearly
demonstrate that even if performing a broad range of business accomplish-
ments, women are less likely than men to perceive themselves as entrepre-
neurs (Ingrid Verheul et al., p. 511).
Additionally, in the research of Arenius and Clark males were proved to
be more likely than females to be opportunity-minded (Arenius and Clark,
2005, Network-based approach, p. 261).
Interestingly, in the examination of Verheul et al. respondents with
a Bachelor’s degree and without a business degree are more likely to view
themselves as entrepreneurs than those with a Master or a business degree.
(Ingrid Verheul et al., p. 512).
2. What are the main factors affecting an
entrepreneurial ability?
Based on the Systematic Literature Review the main factors affecting
entrepreneurial ability and having a positive impact on the decision to start
a new venture were examined.
2.1. Certain personal characteristics
Some affective skills and traits seem to play especially important role in
entrepreneurship:
a) Creativity (Burke et al., 2002 with references to Torrance, 1962) –
or more precisely the creative skill to marshal needed resources
(Kurako 2004),
b) Imagination (Burke et al. 2002 with references to Shackle 1979),
c) Degree of risk aversion, or risk-taking (Verheul et al. 2005: 490
with references to Knight 1921/71; Cantillon 1931; Hull et al.
1980; Sexton and Bowman, 1985, 1986; Stewart et al. 1999; Be-
gley, 1995; Stewart and Roth, 2001) or, as Kuratko specifies “the
willingness to take calculated risks – in terms of time, equity, or
career” (Kurako 2004),
d) Alertness, which Burke et al. (2002 with references to Kirzner,
1973) links with the opportunity perception (Kirzner, 1979 [in:]
Verheul et al. 2005: 490), or “the vision to recognize opportunity
where others see chaos, contradiction, and confusion” (Kurako,
2004),
e) Motivation (McClelland 1965, 1971 [in:] Burke et al. 2002: 255),
which can be also connected with locus of control (Verheul et
al. 2005: 490 with references to Perry et al. 1986; Rotter, 1966),
need for achievement (Verheul et al. 2005: 490 with references
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
63
McCLelland, 1961; Perry et al., 1986), need for autonomy, initia-
tive, persistence (Verheul et al. 2005: 490)
5
,
f) Innovation (Verheul et al. 2005: 490 with reference to Schumpeter,
1934),
g) Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Wilson et al. 2007: 398-399)
6
.
2.1. Competences acquired through formal education/codified
knowledge
7
If somebody was to ask “what is the most important in boosting gradu-
ates entrepreneurship?”, many would believe it is money, others point out
culture, incubation of resources or support in generating ideas. Contrary to
these common believes, scientific examinations show something different
(Kim et al., 2006; Ferrante, 2005). Neither financial nor cultural capital
resources are necessary conditions for pursuing entrepreneurial entry. It
turned out that between three forms of resources, which were investigated,
namely: financial, human, and cultural capital, the potential entrepreneurs
gain significant advantages if they possess high level of human capital. Spe-
cifically: advanced education and managerial experience are strongly re-
lated with the entrepreneurial entry.
Research results confirm the positive link between entrepreneurial abil-
ity and the level of formal education.
Advanced education supports entrepreneurial entry through (Kim et al.,
2006):
1. The acquisition of skills – because students have more chances
to develop necessary skills for an entrepreneur, especially critical
thinking, communication and teamwork,
5
Additionally, according to Timmons “successful entrepreneurs share common attitudes and beha-
viours. They work hard and are driven by an intense commitment and determined perseverance; they
see the cup half full, rather than half empty; they strive for integrity; they burn with competitive desire
to excel and win; they are dissatisfied with the status quo and seek opportunities to improve almost
any situation they encounter; they use failure as a tool for learning and eschew perfection in favour
of effectiveness; and they believe they can personally make an enormous difference in the final out-
come of the ventures and their lives [...]. Entrepreneurs who succeed possess not only a creative and
innovative flair and other attitudes and behaviours but also solid general management skills, business
know-how, and sufficient contacts” Timmons (1994).
6
Other research also indicates the importance of entrepreneurship education at precollege levels in order
to increase both interest in the area and the level of overall preparedness (Dyer, 1994; Kourilsky, 1995).
7
Interesting conclusions from the research based on French and American students examination of
entrepreneurial perception comes from study of Elias G. Carayannis et al. (A cross-cultural learning
strategy, p. 757). As indicated, students „who do not recognize the positive impact that new ventures
can have on the economy and the society, then we must develop a mechanism for students to under-
stand, integrate and reinforce these positive values.”
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
64
2. Providing an access to certain social networks
8
, e.g., alumni net-
work,
3. Serve as a positive signal for nascent entrepreneurs when evaluated
by resource providers, e.g. business angels, venture capitalists,
4. Sorting people by ambition and assertiveness.
Promotion of entrepreneurial education is especially recommended in
low-income nations, besides improvements of confidence in property rights,
guarantee access to capital, safeguard safe economic conditions, develop
physical infrastructure (Wennekers et al. 2005: 306).
However, both too little and too much education discourages attempted
entrepreneurship. As Kim noted: “The acquisition of skills and credentials
may create valuable opportunities for individuals to work for others rather
than pursuing a new business venture” (Kim et al. 2006).
I. Grilo and J.M. Irigoyen complemented Kim’s examination results and
added that „relative to the intermediate level of education, belonging to the
higher or the lower education group has a positive impact on being self-em-
ployed. In other words, the relationship between education and self-employ-
ment seems to be U-shaped” (Grilo & Irigoyen, 2006).
2.2. On-the-job experience
Practical experiences seems to be strongly supportive for entrepreneurial
abilities (Mueller, 2006 with references to Shane, 2000; Shepherd and De-
Tienne, 2005; Wagner, 2004)
9
. Especially multiple forms of work experience
(Parker, 2006) is important for supporting nascent entrepreneurs. Without
sufficient work experience, individuals may encounter difficulties in taking
the first steps towards becoming an entrepreneur. In particular, researchers
focus on four types of work experience: general full-time work experience,
managerial experience, previous start-up experience, and current self-em-
ployment. Since managerial experience is usually out of touch for youth,
8
Kurato (Emergence of entrepreneurship…, p. 582) emphasizes the importance of education in the
entrepreneurial learning by recalling proposition of Ronstadt (1987) that “entrepreneurial programs
should be designed so that potential entrepreneurs are aware of barriers to initiating their entrepre-
neurial careers and can devise ways to overcome them. He proposed a two-continuum model of cur-
ricular design for entrepreneurship education. His “structured-unstructured” continuum addressed
various methods of transferring information and expertise. Among the methods he discussed were
lectures, case studies, and feasibility plans. He labeled his second continuum “entrepreneurial know-
how/entrepreneurial know-who.” This continuum represented the belief that success in entrepreneur-
ship is dependent not only on knowledge but the network of individuals with whom an entrepreneur
is connected. Ronstadt (1987) contended that an effective program must show students “how” to en-
trepreneurially behave and should also introduce them to people who might be able to facilitate their
success”.
9
Entrepreneurial perception is also heightened by Burke et al. 2002: 255; by greater access to in-
formation and an ability to analyse information. That is why business contacts (McGuire, 1976) and
education (Schultz, 1980) become important attributes.
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
65
work experience in form of internship and work projects are within their
reach and supportive for entrepreneurship.
It was also emphasised (Muller 2006: 55) that work and previous self-
employment experience is more important than formal education for the
likelihood of being a nascent entrepreneur. Particularly, “an entrepreneurial
attitude is related to working in a small firm with managerial responsibili-
ties and may substitute previous self-employment experience”.
Main benefits from work experience for the graduate entrepreneurship
are links to (Kim et al. 2006):
– Social networks,
– Market information,
– Capital,
– Potential customers and employees.
Besides the existing arguments in favour of work-entrepreneurship con-
nection, there are also some contrary opinions. For example findings of Aren-
ius and Clark showed that work status does not play an important role in the
perception of entrepreneurial opportunities (Arenius and Clark 2005: 261).
The competences and experience gained in the labour market can be
transformed into:
a) The ability to formulate an effective venture team (Kurako 2004),
b) Fundamental skill of building solid business plan (Kurako 2004),
c) Experience and knowledge of the market (Burke et al. 2002 with
references to Jovanovic, 1982).
2.3. Entrepreneurship programmes focused on inspiration
Another factor important for supporting graduates entrepreneurship are
entrepreneurial programmes, especially if they include an inspirational part.
Surely „knowledge and resources could increase the likelihood of success
for those who are going to start a new venture, but it turns out that it is
the inspiration that raises attitude, intention and increases the chances that
students will eventually set up their own businesses” (Souitaris et al. 2007).
It was confirmed while testing the effect of entrepreneurship programmes
on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention of science and engineering stu-
dents. The result showed that:
– „Students in the programme group increased their subjective norm
and intention towards self-employment, while students in the con-
trol group did not,
– Intention towards self-employment was not related to nascency at
the end of the programme (probably due to the time lag between
intention and action, especially in the case of young students).
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
66
– Inspiration (and not learning or resource-utilisation) was the en-
trepreneurial programme’s benefit related to the increase of sub-
jective norm and intention towards self-employment” (Souitaris et
al., 2007).
As V. Souitaris indicates that “the main practical implication for entrepre-
neurship programme developers is that if our aim is to increase the number
of entrepreneurs from the student population, then the inspirational part of
the programme has to be designed purposefully” (Souitaris et al., 2007).
2.4. Other factors playing a role in entrepreneurship
Besides entrepreneurship programmes focused on inspiration, on-the-
job experience, formal education and personal characteristics, there are
some other factors which might be decisive in making a decision to become
an entrepreneur. It could be:
1. Tacit knowledge embedded in the life environment (Ferrante 2005:
169),
2. Social capital, especially social networks and contact to other en-
trepreneurs; it was confirmed (Muller 2006: 55-56; Davidsson and
Honig 2003; Minniti 2004, 2005; Singh et al., 1999 [in:] Muller,
2006) that individuals are embedded in their local entrepreneur-
ial environment which influences an individual especially at the
beginning of the decision making process about whether to start
their own business. However, once the entrepreneurial desire is
established, the importance of role models decreases.
3. Availability of financial capital or individual wealth (Kim et al.
2007; Muller, 2006 with references to Dunn and Hotz-Eakin, 2000;
Evans and Jovanovich, 1989), although the research results indi-
cate, what was already pointed out, that financial assets are less
important for nascent entrepreneurs than other resources (Muller
2006: 56; Kim et al. 2007),
4. Expected profit and success (Muller 2006: 41),
5. An economic environment (Fritsch, Schroeter 2008: 1).
3. Summary
Understanding of “entrepreneurship” varies but in most cases the term
is defined as a dynamic process embracing opportunity recognition and its
exploitation, which requires application of resources.
Entrepreneurs can be perceived as those engaged in various types of en-
trepreneurial activities – starting from entering an independent business by
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
67
creating the new one and finishing with intrapraneurs, who takes initiative
for business unit creation inside an established firm.
The following factors seem to play the most important role in affect-
ing an entrepreneurial ability: 1) Certain personal characteristics, 2) Com-
petences acquired through formal education, 3) On-the-job experience, 4)
Entrepreneurship programmes focused on inspiration, 5) Some other fac-
tors, e.g. social capital, especially contacts to other entrepreneurs, financial
resources, an economic environment.
References
1. Backes-Gellner, U., Werner, A. (2007), Entrepreneurial Signaling via Educa-
tion: A Success Factor in Innovative Start-Ups, Small Business Economics,
Vol. 29 No. 1/2, pp. 188.
2. Burt, R. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Har-
vard University Press, Cambridge.
3. Bandura, A. (1978), Reflections on Self-efficacy, Advances in Behavioral Re-
search and Therapy Vol. 1, pp. 237-269.
4. Begley, T.M. (1995), Using founder status, age of firm, and company growth
rate as the basis for distinguishing entrepreneurs from managers of smaller
businesses, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 249-263.
5. Cantillon, R. (1931), Essai sur La Nature du Commerce en General, translation
by H. Higgs (Ed.). MacMillan, London.
6. Carayannis, E.G., Evans, D., Hanson, M. (2003), A cross-cultural learning
strategy for entrepreneurship education, outline of key concepts and lessons
learned from a comparative study of entrepreneurship students in France and
the US, Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 757-771.
7. Cohen, W. M,. Levinthal, D.A (1990), Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspec-
tive on Learning and Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35,
pp. 128-152.
8. Drucker, P.F. (1985), Innovation and entrepreneurship. Harper & Row, New
York.
9. Dyer, W.G. Jr. (1994), Towards a theory of entrepreneurial careers, Entrepre-
neurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 7-21.
10. Evans, D., Hanson, M. (1999), Environmental contingencies in teaching entre-
preneurship: the case of France. ESCEM Working Paper.
11. Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., King, W. (1997), Some research perspectives on en-
trepreneurship education, enterprise education, and education for small busi-
ness management: A ten-year literature review, International Small Business
Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 56-77.
12. Ferrante, F. (2005), Revealing Entrepreneurial Talent, Small Business Eco-
nomics, Vol. 25 No. 2, p. 169.
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
68
13. Goedhuys, M., Sleuwaegen, L. (2000), Entrepreneurship and growth of entre-
preneurial firms in Coˆte d’Ivoire, The Journal of Development Studies, Vol.
36 No. 3, pp. 123-145.
14. Grilo, J., Irigoyen, J. M., Entrepreneurship in the EU: To Wish and not to be,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4, p. 314.
15. Hull, D., Bosley, J., Udell, G. (1980), Renewing the hunt for the heffalump:
identifying potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics, Journal
of Small Business Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, 11-18.
16. Katz, J.A. (1991), Endowed Positions: Entrepreneurship and Related Fields,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 53-67.
17. Kim, P.H., Aldrich, H.E., Keister, L.A. (2006), Access (Not) Denied: The Im-
pact of Financial, Human, and Cultural Capital on Entrepreneurial Entry in the
United States, Small Business Economics, Vol. 27 No. 1, p.5.
18. Katz, J.A. (2003), The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American en-
trepreneurship education 1876-1999, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 283-300.
19. Katz, J.A. (1991), The institution and infrastructure of entrepreneurship, En-
trepreneurship: Theory Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 85-102.
20. Kim, P., Aldrich, H.E., Keister, L.A. (2007), Access (Not) Denied: The Impact
of Financial, Human, and Cultural Capital on Entrepreneurial Entry in the
United States, Small Business Economics, Vol. 27, pp. 5-22.
21. Kirzner, I.M. (1979), Perception, Opportunity and Profit. University of Chi-
cago Press, Chicago.
22. Knight, F.H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
23. Kourilsky, M. (1995), Entrepreneurship Education: Opportunity in Search of
Curriculum, Business Education Forum, Vol. 50 No. 10, pp. 11-15.
24. Kuratko, D.F., Hodgetts, R.M. (2004), Entrepreneurship: Theory, process,
practice. OH: South-Western College Publishers, Mason.
25. McCLelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
26. Mintzberg, H. (2004), Managers not MBAs: a Hard Look at the Soft Practice
of Managing and Management Development. Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
27. Mueller, S.L., Thomas, A.S., Culture and Entrepreneurial Potential: a Nine
Country Study of Locus of Control and Innovativeness, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 1, p. 53.
28. Parker, S.C. (2006), Learning about the Unknown: How Fast do Entrepreneurs
Adjust Their Beliefs?, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
29. Perry, C., MacArthur, R., Meredith, G., Cunnington, B. (1986). Need for achieve-
ment and locus of control of Australian small business owner-managers and super-
entrepreneurs. International Small Business Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 55-64.
Results of the systematic literature review on entrepreneurship...
69
30. Pittaway, L., Cope, J. (2007), Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Review
Of The Evidence, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 479-510.
31. Ronstadt, R., Hornaday, J.A., Peterson, R., Vesper, K.H. (Eds.) (1986), Fron-
tiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Wellesly, MA, pp. 40-51.
32. Ronstadt, R. (1987), The educated entrepreneurs: A new era of entrepreneurial
education is beginning, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 37-53.
33. Rotter, J.B. (1966), Generalized expectancies for internal versus external con-
trol of reinforcement, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, Vol.
80, No. 1(609), pp. 1-28.
34. Shackle, G.L.S. (1979), Imagination and the Nature of Choice. Edinburgh Uni-
versity Press, Edinburgh.
35. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard Uni-
versity, Cambridge.
36. Sexton, D.L., Bowman, N. (1985), The entrepreneur: a capable executive and
more. J. Bus.Venturing 1 (1), pp. 129-140.
37. Sexton, D.L., Bowman, N. (1986), Validation of a personality index: compara-
tive entrepreneurial analysis of female entrepreneurs, managers, entrepreneur-
ship students and business students, in: Ronstadt, R., Hornaday, J.A., Peterson,
R., Vesper, K.H. (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson Col-
lege, Wellesly.
38. Shane, S., Venkataraman, S. (2000), The Promise of Entrepreneurship as
a Field of Research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 217-226.
39. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., Al-Laham, A., Do Entrepreneurship Programmes
Raise Entrepreneurial Intention of Science and Engineering Students? The Ef-
fect of Learning, Inspiration and Resources, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 567-587.
40. Stewart, W.H., Roth, P.L., (2001), Risk propensity differences between entre-
preneurs and managers: a meta-analysis review, Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, Vol. 86 No.1, pp. 145-153.
41. Stewart Jr., W.H., Watson, W.E., Carland, J.C., Carland, W. (1999), A proclivity
for entrepreneurship: a comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and
corporate managers, Journal of Business Venturing Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-214.
42. Solomon, G.T., Weaver, K.M., Fernald, L.W. (1994), A historical examination
of small business management and entrepreneurship pedagogy, Simul. Gam-
ing Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 338-352.
43. Timmons, J. (1994), New Venture Creation, 4th ed. Irwin.
44. Torrance, E.P. (1962), Guiding Creative Talent. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.
45. Wennekers S., van Wennekers, A., Thurik, R., Reynolds, P. (2005), Nascent
Entrepreneurship and the Level of Economic Development, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 24, pp. 293-309.
Forum Scientiae Oeconomia Volume 2 (2014) No 1
70
46. Venkataraman, S. (1997), The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Re-
search, in J.A. Katz (ed.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and
Growth, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 119-138.
47. Verheul, I., Uhlaner, L., Thurik, R. (2005). Business accomplishments, gender
and entrepreneurial self-image, Journal of Business Venturing 20, pp. 483-518.
48. Vesper, K.H. (1993), Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurial Studies
Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
doc_173536898.pdf