Description
On this detailed file resolve viewpoint enterprise education as pedagogy brian jones.
VIEWPOINT
Enterprise education as pedagogy
Brian Jones
Leeds Business School, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK, and
Norma Iredale
Enterprise Education Consultant, Chester-le-Street, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to suggest that the most appropriate way to construe the concept of
enterprise education is from a pedagogical viewpoint. Enterprise education as pedagogy is argued to
be the most appropriate way to think about the concept and serves to demarcate it from
entrepreneurship education, which is very much about business start-up and the new venture creation
process.
Design/methodology/approach – Enterprise education is underpinned by experiential action
learning that can be in, outside and away from the normal classroom environment. It can be delivered
across a range of subject areas throughout different phases of education.
Findings – Enterprise and entrepreneurship education are perceived to be con?ated terms that for
many in the education and business communities mean much the same thing. Adopting an enterprise
education approach allows greater pupil/student ownership of the learning process.
Practical implications – Enterprise education as pedagogy advocates an approach to teaching
where speci?c learning outcomes differ across and between different educational phases and subject
areas but which has a clear and coherent philosophical underpinning.
Originality/value – Enterprise education should not be equated solely with business, as it is a
broader, deeper and richer concept. The theoretical import of the paper is in part a plea for a more
rigorous, practically informed analysis of the different strands (pedagogy, entrepreneurship,
citizenship and civic responsibility) that make up enterprise education. The paper also sets out the case
for a more critical analysis of enterprise education.
Keywords Business enterprise, Education, Entrepreneurialism, Teaching
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
This paper looks at issues around enterprise education and in so doing offers
description, explanation and critical analysis of the concept. In discussing the
enterprise education debate it teases out the similarities and differences with
entrepreneurship education and explores how these concepts might be better
understood. The recent World Economic Forum report, “Educating the next wave of
entrepreneurs” (Volkmann et al., 2009) clearly sets out the case for entrepreneurship
education. Whilst the World Economic Forum report looks at entrepreneurship
education as a global concept the focus here is primarily on enterprise education in the
UK. This is an issue that is particularly current and relevant given the government’s
recent launch of the National Enterprise Academy, which “will offer the UK’s ?rst
accredited courses in enterprise and entrepreneurship” (Halls, 2009, p. 5).
In Britain the last 30 years has seen an increased focus on the introduction of
enterprise education to the curriculum throughout all phases of education, in part to
help address the need for a trained, skilled workforce able to operate in a more ?exible
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
7
Education þ Training
Vol. 52 No. 1, 2010
pp. 7-19
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912
DOI 10.1108/00400911011017654
labour market where self-employment, starting a business or working for a small to
medium-sized enterprise (SME) are encouraged. This focus has usually been in the
form of a recommendation, but most recently it has been introduced as a compulsory
element at Key Stage 4[1] of the National Curriculum in England. Scotland has seen the
value of introducing enterprise as part of the curriculum in all phases beginning at
primary school level (Scottish Executive, 2001, p. 1). Their raison d’e ˆtre is “to identify
the next generation of entrepreneurs”, but they also see the need for children to be
equipped with “the creativity and adaptability to thrive in an ever-changing world”
(Scottish Executive, 2001). In primary schools in England there is no compulsion to
teach enterprise, although it is looked upon with favour by Ofsted inspectors (Ofsted,
2004), who see it as enriching the curriculum overall. In recent years also a greater
emphasis has been placed on introducing enterprise education into universities,
perhaps most notably evident in the Enterprise in Higher Education initiative[2]. The
value is seen to lie in the way in which young people can be helped to overcome some of
the more recent changes in employment structures while at the same time assisting
with the building of a strong economy. Enterprising qualities are also viewed as being
essential in relieving the stress of some of the social issues that have emerged from the
rapid changes in society. This paper adds to the ongoing debate around the meaning,
nature and purpose of enterprise (Hytti and O’Gorman, 2004; Rae, 2007) and
entrepreneurship (Matlay, 2006; Volkmann et al., 2009) education.
The paper begins by setting the context in which enterprise education was
introduced to the UK and its origins are traced back to James Callaghan’s Ruskin
College Speech of 1976. It then touches on and makes brief mention of subsequent
salient developments in UK education policy before outlining the rationale and
importance of education-business links. The crux of the argument is then presented
through an explanation and analysis of the key differences between entrepreneurship
and enterprise education. A critical analysis of the enterprise-entrepreneurship
education concept is presented and a way forward is identi?ed.
Context
The origins of enterprise education in the UK
The past 30 years or more have seen a greater involvement by government in
education than in the past, and arguably this stemmed from the speech delivered by
James Callaghan at Ruskin College, Oxford in 1976. Included in the concerns he voiced
at that time was that young people leaving school did not ?t the requirements of
industry, and Callaghan was of the view that new skills were needed (Callaghan, 1976).
In his speech Callaghan declared that the goals of education from nursery school
through to adult education were clear enough, in that they should equip children to the
best of their ability for a lively, constructive place in society, and ?t them to do a job of
work – not one or the other, but both. This is often alluded to as the beginning of the
change process in education-industry work, though some see it as the announcement of
change rather than the cause (Iredale, 1999, p. 19).
This perceived shortfall in employability skills, together with rapid societal and
economic change brought about by the decline of traditional industries and the
emergence of new patterns of work, was an additional concern, as were some of the
methods employed by teachers in schools, which were seen as overly progressive.
Although the Ruskin speech was in part aimed at stimulating debate on education, it
ET
52,1
8
conspired to bring about an unprecedented amount of state-led restructuring of the UK
system. Initially reform was most evident in the introduction of a National Curriculum,
which aimed to ensure that all young people were equipped with “the basic tools to do
the job required” (Policy Watch, 2006). The speech also led to the introduction of
initiatives such as TVEI[3] (Technical and Vocational Education Initiative), which
sought to target young people with skills outside the traditional curriculum and
encourage those who might be less academically inclined. It was initiatives like TVEI,
which were more generally seen as part of a “new vocationalism”, that laid the
foundation for enterprise education. The complex changes taking place in the British
economy and society and the associated issues of social, economic and political concern
have resulted in a continued debate by politicians as to how these matters might be
resolved. Enterprise education has emerged as one response and as a consequence this
has been offered in a variety of forms over the years to a greater or lesser extent to a
wide range of individuals.
In the UK one of the government’s key economic and educational objectives is to
help secure a skilled productive workforce able to act in an enterprising way
(Department of Trade and Industry, 2000, 2001; Department of Trade and
Industry/Department for Education and Employment, 2001). One of the ways in
which this can be achieved is by ensuring that the education system gives a proper
foundation for work either as an employed or a self-employed person. The UK
government’s Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative (Whiteley, 1995) is one
example of a policy designed to give education a more vocational focus. Partnerships
between education and business have been encouraged by government as they are seen
to offer opportunities to make education more relevant to life and work, to raise
standards and levels of attainment, to raise enterprise awareness and business
understanding amongst teachers and students, and to inform and develop advice and
counselling so that individuals are better placed to build on and use their skills. The
UK government’s view is that enterprise education provides the means to change
educational systems and standards to produce more people with higher-level general
skills better able to operate in an enterprising way so as to take advantage of
opportunities emerging from the new ?exible market economy. It operates with the
intention of changing the way people are taught as well as what they learn. The
pedagogy is not subject speci?c but can be introduced and applied across the
curriculum (Iredale, 1993, 2002; Ofsted, 2004).
The value of education business links
Enterprise education assists, develops and improves links between education and
business and brings greater coherence to their activities. It is a key element of work
related learning and is a statutory requirement at key stage 4 (see Department for
Education and Skills, 2003). Increasingly employers are encouraged to deepen their
links with schools, colleges and universities. They seek to promote more effective
education-business collaboration and mutual understanding, by developing better
two-way contacts that bene?t both education and industry and involve employers
more centrally in young people’s education. One aim of enterprise education is to
increase employer, especially small-medium enterprise involvement in schools,
colleges and universities. Work placements, business start-up simulations, mock
interviews, research and consultancy projects, careers talks, business ideas generation,
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
9
mentoring, preparation of curricula vitae, business planning along with advice on
presentations and job applications are areas in which employers can be involved. All of
the aforementioned activities are examples as to how enterprise education can be
embedded within different curriculum contexts.
Enterprise educators help to increase young people’s awareness of the world of
work including knowledge of small and medium-sized enterprises, the society of which
they are a part and provide insight into entrepreneurship. The result is the
incorporation of good working and community practices in student goals. These can
facilitate the transition to work (be that in an employed or self-employed capacity) and
life beyond as an engaged, enterprising citizen and member of a community.
The problem: enterprise or entrepreneurship education?
It is contested here that enterprise education is a chimera that can mean all things to all
people. Enterprise and entrepreneurship are often used interchangeably and this causes
much confusion. Ofsted recommends that “schools should establish a clear de?nition”
“that is understood by all involved” and suggests “enterprise education consists of
enterprise capability supported by better ?nancial capability and economic and business
understanding” (Ofsted, 2004; Teachernet, 2008). Atherton (2004) has recognised the
need to separate or unbundle the terms. The need to differentiate the terms to identify the
similarities and differences of purpose between them is evident. There are numerous
de?nitions to be found in various publications, however Price (2004, p. 4) offers the
following view of enterprise, entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship:
Enterprise is an inclusive concept, which provides both the context in which subject
disciplines can be explored, as well as an approach, through skill development, which can be
taken to the exploration and discovery of a discipline. In these respects, it can provide a
challenging environment within which to explore a variety of teaching areas (the small
business context) as well as provide a dimension to learning, that of developing the skills of
being enterprising, which provide students with an attitude towards learning, which rewards
and supports innovation, change and development.
Enterprise supports the recognition of new market opportunities as well as develops the
opportunity to change and develop at the individual, business and industry/sector levels.
This includes the exploration of new ideas and developments from a corporate perspective (as
intrapreneurship) as well as the creation of new ventures, social programmes and the
exploration of new opportunities (Price, 2004, p. 4).
More succinctly – enterprise education aims to maximise opportunities for the
development of enterprising skills, behaviours and attributes (Gibb, 1993) in young
people in the expectation that these will be utilised, deployed and developed at some
future point whatever their career choice might be while entrepreneurship education is
aimed more at encouraging people to start a business.
As noted above the terms enterprise education and entrepreneurship education are
often used interchangeably by policy makers and in much academic discourse. It is
contested here that to minimise the potential for confusion, to aid understanding and
grow knowledge there is a need for greater clarity. Below we tease out the different foci
and emphasis given to enterprise and entrepreneurship education.
The primary focus of entrepreneurship education is on:
.
how to start a business including the key processes of business start-up;
.
how to plan and launch a new business venture;
ET
52,1
10
.
how to grow and manage a business;
.
enhancing the necessary skills and behaviours needed to run a business;
.
the deployment of entrepreneurial skills and knowledge in a business context;
.
imminent use of the knowledge and skills needed to start a business; and
.
self-employment.
The primary focus of enterprise education is on:
.
an active learning enterprise education pedagogy;
.
knowledge needed to function effectively as a citizen, consumer, employee or
self-employed person in a ?exible market economy;
.
the development of personal skills, behaviours and attributes for use in a variety
of contexts;
.
the person as an enterprising individual – in the community, at home, in the
workplace or as an entrepreneur;
.
the use of enterprising skills, behaviours and attributes throughout the life
course; and
.
how a business, particularly a small business works.
Entrepreneurship education focuses primarily on the needs of the entrepreneur,
whereas enterprise education addresses the requirements of a wider range of
stakeholders, including consumers and the community. However, the key difference
between the two terms is that the primary focus of entrepreneurship education is on
starting, growing and managing a business, whereas the primary focus of enterprise
education is on the acquisition and development of personal skills, abilities and
attributes that can be used in different contexts and throughout the life course. The UK
National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) reinforces this point:
The enterprise concept focuses upon the development of the “Enterprising Person and
Entrepreneurial Mindset”. The former constitutes a set of personal skills, attributes,
behavioural and motivational capacities which can be used in any context (social, work,
leisure etc) (see www.ncge.com/home.php).
The NCGE continues:
The entrepreneurial concept focuses upon the application of enterprising skills in the context
of setting up a new venture, developing/growing an existing venture and designing an
entrepreneurial organisation (one in which the capacity for effective use of enterprising skills
will be enhanced) (see www.ncge.com/home.php).
A key differentiator between entrepreneurship and enterprise education lies in the
pedagogical approach adopted. Entrepreneurship education might, for example, use
traditional didactic approaches (Jones and Iredale, 2006) to the teaching and learning of
business ideas generation, business planning and the new venture creation process. In
contrast, enterprise education takes a more creative, innovative pedagogical approach
that utilises experiential action learning methods. The scope and practice of enterprise
education is much broader than entrepreneurship education, which is overly focused
on how to start a business.
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
11
The use of enterprise education pedagogy can be used across subject areas and
throughout different phases of education. In contrast, entrepreneurship education is
primarily delivered through subjects like business or economic studies at secondary
and further education levels or via business school modules at university level. Using
creative, action and experiential learning pedagogies means that the enterprise
education approach can be applied in different teaching and learning contexts, through
different subject areas (see the example of biology enterprise in Hartshorn and Hannon,
2005) to best meet different pupils/students needs. Entrepreneurship education
delivered, for example, through business start-up or business planning modules is
often a bolt-on to existing business education provision and is a topic area, or subject
matter, in its own right. In contrast, enterprise education as pedagogy can underpin a
raft of subject areas across all phases of the curriculum. This poses a number of
challenges but also creates a number of opportunities.
The role of the teacher/lecturer and the teaching environment are of great
importance when introducing enterprise education. Unlike traditional didactic
learning, enterprise education focuses on the process. Rather then imparting
knowledge or passing on information in a situation where the students are passive and
uninvolved, a situation is created where the teacher acts as a facilitator, guiding the
students through the process of learning, allowing them the opportunity to think and
act independently. This can often be dif?cult for a teacher/lecturer who has been
accustomed to directing the learning process. The challenge for the teacher/lecturer is
to develop a teaching style that encourages learning by doing, exchange, experiment,
positive mistake-making, calculated risk-taking, creative problem-solving and
interaction with the outside world. Students and pupils also need to learn to adapt
to this distinctive approach to teaching and learning, which requires interaction and
independent thought.
Enterprise education in practice varies within and between different phases of
education. In general a range of enterprising pedagogical approaches are deployed
within different teaching and learning contexts. Classroom dynamics and speci?c
practices are adapted according to the teaching and learning objectives, student needs,
abilities and context.
Enterprise education has obvious links with entrepreneurship but it is more than
simply about starting a business. The enterprise educational pedagogical approach
advocates action, experiential learning styles and as much as anything else it is about
the broad notion of citizenship and civic responsibilities. At the same time it allows for
the introduction of aspects of work-related learning. This also is a focus for
government policy and intervention and has been incorporated into the curriculum
alongside enterprise education[4].
Adopting an enterprise education pedagogy accords with liberal educational ideals
whilst entrepreneurship education has at its theoretical base libertarian values. Liberal
educational ideals have personal liberty and freedom at their core and can be traced
back to the work of Mill (1859) and Locke (1979). Libertarian values also stress the
importance of liberty but focus on individual rights (Hayek, 1944, 1960; Nozick, 1974;
Rand, 1961, 1964) and entitlements. Libertarianism has been closely associated with
“neo-liberalism” and the “new-right”. Entrepreneurship education advocates
self-employment and promotes new business start-up. The subliminal message is a
libertarian one which argues that the state can only do so much and that the private
ET
52,1
12
sector and individuals are best placed to create wealth, as well as to deliver innovation
and change. In contrast, the emphasis of enterprise education pedagogy is on the
freedom of the individual to change, grow, develop, act on and adapt to opportunities,
circumstances and contexts.
Despite the various claims and assertions as to the bene?ts of enterprise education,
it is the case that a thorough going critique of the concept is overdue. A tentative start
is made here to lay the foundations for a more critical analysis of the enterprise and
entrepreneurship education concepts, and it is suggested that more needs to be done in
this regard. Critical informed analysis should ultimately feed into change, development
and improvement at theoretical, policy and practice levels.
Enterprise education undoubtedly faces a number of challenges. Its close af?nity
to and relationship with entrepreneurship (business start-up) education is a source
for confusion over its remit and purpose. It is almost certainly the case that for
many teachers, lecturers, pupils and students enterprise and entrepreneurship
education are perceived as being one and the same thing. It is also worthy of note
that enterprise education itself remains a contested concept given the pedagogical
similarity of approach it bears to established methods of action and experiential
learning.
The way forward
Learning through enterprise
The principal argument advanced in this paper is to reinforce and champion the need
to shift from traditional to enterprising modes of teaching and learning, uncluttered by
distracting and unhelpful con?ations with entrepreneurship education. Enterprise
education encompasses a range of changes in educational practices as well as the
nature of the teacher-learner relationship. Enterprise educational restructuring
involves two dimensions:
(1) changes in the curriculum; and
(2) changes in the techniques of teaching and learning.
Compared with traditional didactic educational methods, enterprise education shifts
learner expectations and can require teacher input to explain the processes and issues
involved.
The introduction, change and reorganisation of enterprise education is occurring at
primary, secondary, further and higher education levels (Lambert, 2003; Levie, 1999).
The objectives across all sectors are to all intents and purposes broadly the same: to
encourage a more enterprising approach to teaching and learning across all curriculum
subject areas. However, curriculum delivery, expectations and assessment of
enterprise educational outcomes vary within the different education sectors and
subject areas. It is important to recognise that enterprise education is very much about
reshaping and renegotiating the terms and conditions of the whole teaching and
learning experience. The pace, methods, tools and ways of working are changed for
both teacher and learner. Traditional techniques of teaching and ways of working do
still have a role to play. The balance of power between teacher and learner remains a
constant zero sum co-dependent relationship of equals. Using techniques of enterprise
education in no way diminishes teachers authority or standing and equally, nor does it
diminish students’ quest to learn.
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
13
Enterprise education can be said to operate at two levels:
(1) it can be perceived in an abstract way as an idea, a philosophy and an approach
to teaching and learning; and
(2) it can be explored in a contextual classroom level where enterprise educational
ideals are translated into pedagogical practice.
As a generalised philosophy its actual practice is loose, decentralised, non-prescriptive
and ?uid. Enterprise education practice within the same educational phase is
inevitably open to change in part to meet the speci?c needs of different classroom
practitioners, and learner requirements as well as to meet whole school, college or
university expectations. It has broad strategic aims but within the overall strategy
there exist speci?c and substantive objectives.
Freedom. The ideal of freedom (Kant, 1990; Berlin, 1990) is a big incentive and
motivator for introducing programmes of enterprise education. Enterprise education
helps promote and extend freedom via a pedagogy which encourages participation,
learning by doing and asking questions; but it also promotes freedom in that it
establishes the right to start or not start a business – it helps to demonstrate that
employment in the SME sector can be a positive and rewarding experience and in so
doing, by default challenges the role of the state and big business as monopoly
providers of goods, services and employment. Enterprise education’s focus on the
small to medium-sized enterprise sector serves as a counterbalance to the corporate
worldview. Enterprise education acts as a liberator of ideas and calls into question
certain taken-for-granted erroneous assumptions about work, employment and the
nature of a market economy.
Citizenship. The content combined with the pedagogical approach and practices of
enterprise education contribute to the creation of a democratic learning environment
(Hannam, 1998). It thus fosters democratic citizenship (Dewey, 1987; Gutmann, 1987)
and community responsibility, and can help resolve common problems (Deuchar,
2007). Enterprise education has a role to play in both community development and
promoting an enabling market environment. It is relevant to not-for-pro?t
organisations, can help empower members of the community and can further the
notion of the good society. Enterprise education helps promote the idea of freedom and
opportunity. It does so via the pedagogy of enterprise education, which is very much
directed at empowering individual learners to take ownership and responsibility for
their own learning.
Critical assessment of impact
A second argument sits comfortably with the above advocacy of enterprise education
as pedagogy. To a large extent, recent enterprise and entrepreneurship initiatives,
wherever located in the curriculum, have been heavily dependent on public ?nance.
Educational, enterprise and entrepreneurship policy makers have allocated and spent
public money on the premise that enterprise and entrepreneurship education can make
a difference to life chances and business opportunities. There is a very real danger that
enterprise/entrepreneurship education comes to be perceived as a universal,
all-embracing panacea that can address economic and societal structural
inequalities. There has been and remains within the academic and policy
community an uncritical acceptance of government largesse in enterprise and
ET
52,1
14
entrepreneurship education. This is particularly surprising given the number of
interventions, the amounts of public money spent, the contested nature of the concepts
along with their questionable worth and doubts surrounding their measurable impact.
The academic community has a moral burden to bear in to date largely failing to
critically comment on and call to account government spending in this area.
The current conceptual and practice ambiguities that characterise enterprise and
enterprise education initiatives, however, present a critical stumbling-block in
advancing evidence-based assessment of value. Of course, a fundamental question is
“How might one measure the value of enterprise education”?. While the success or
otherwise of entrepreneurship education might be measured, for example by the
number of new businesses formed, a robust means of establishing the impact of
enterprise education has yet to be determined. However, to avoid the accusation that
enterprise education is built on assertion and unsubstantiated claims, a
thorough-going, comprehensive, evidence-based evaluation of past and current
initiatives and programmes is indeed overdue. A clear “de-coupling” of enterprise and
entrepreneurship education is a key ?rst step in facilitating such evaluation efforts.
Conclusions
The British government’s strategic enterprise and entrepreneurial intentions are
delivered and realised at classroom level in different education sectors. The
government has and continues to promote and encourage the provision of enterprise
and entrepreneurship education through a range of initiatives and curriculum
developments. This paper has addressed a conceptual ambiguity in how the
terminology is used in policy deliberations and developed in terms of practice
initiatives. All too often the terms are con?ated, with resultant ambiguity of what
exactly is being sought, promoted and developed and with consequential failures to
assess impact and value. Enterprise and entrepreneurship are most appropriately
understood and practised as different; with different goals and different means to
achieving these goals. Through greater conceptual clarity, a way forward is offered.
This paper has sketched a future agenda in which enterprise as pedagogy offers clarity
for policy developments throughout primary, secondary, further and higher education.
Of course, to be effective and achieve maximum impact it is important that these
different phases of education (primary, secondary, further and higher) employ and
utilise enterprise education in ways that are relevant, appropriate and ?t for purpose in
relation to students’ needs at these different levels. Nonetheless, uncoupled from
entrepreneurship education, enterprise education can be pursued with clarity and
purpose and a basis established from which rigorous assessment of impact can be
pursued, thus contributing to the further development of quality “enterprise”-based
teaching provision.
Notes
1. Key Stage 4 of the National Curriculum in England is aimed at school years 10 and 11. It
covers GCSEs and the new national diplomas and other accredited quali?cations.
2. The Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative was funded by the UK government’s
Employment Department and ran from 1988 to 1996. Through the encouragement of
personal development and the improvement of students’ generic skills the initiative sought
to give a more vocational orientation to a range of higher education programmes.
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
15
3. The Technical andVocational EducationInitiative, ?rst pilotedin1983, was one of anumber of
initiatives set up to help align education more closely to the “needs” of industry and commerce
andrectify some of the knowledge, skill andattitude de?cits of school leavers. Other initiatives
over the years include the DTI’s Enterprise and Education Initiative, Compacts, Enterprise in
Higher Education, Enterprise and Education Advisers, Technical Vocational Educational
Initiative (TVEI), Careers Guidance, Teacher Placement Service and Economic Awareness in
Teacher Education Programme, Work Related Curriculum Programme, the Training Credit
Scheme, Schools Curriculum Industry Partnership (SCIP), Education Business Link
Organisations (EBLOs), Project Trident, Young and Mini Enterprise.
4. The statutory curriculum guidelines beginning September 2004 state that all pupils at KS4
are entitled to a programme of work-related learning and this should provide opportunities
for students to recognise, practise and develop their skills for enterprise and employability.
These are also included in Ofsted’s inspection guidelines (Department for Children, Schools
and Families).
References
Atherton, A. (2004), “Unbundling enterprise and entrepreneurship”, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, May, pp. 121-7.
Berlin, I. (1990), Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Callaghan, J. (1976), “Towards a national debate”, speech delivered at Ruskin College, Oxford,
18 October.
Department for Education and Skills (2003), Vocational and Work-related Learning at Key Stage 4
– Guidance for Managers in Schools and Colleges and Their Partners in the Community,
DfES Publications, Nottingham.
Department of Trade and Industry (2000), Excellence and Opportunity – A Science and Innovation
Policy for the 21st Century, White Paper, Cm 4814, The Stationery Of?ce, London.
Department of Trade and Industry (2001), Productivity in the UK: Enterprise and the Productivity
Challenge, HMSO, London.
Department of Trade and Industry/Department for Education and Employment (2001),
Opportunity for All in a World of Change: A White Paper on Enterprise, Skills and
Innovation, Cm 5052, HMSO, London.
Deuchar, R. (2007), Citizenship, Enterprise and Learning: Harmonising Competing Educational
Agendas, Trentham Books, Stoke-on-Trent.
Dewey, J. (1987), “Democracy and educational administration”, in Boydson, J.A. (Ed.),
John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale
and Edwardsville, IL.
Gibb, A.A. (1993), “The enterprise culture and education: understanding enterprise education
and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider entrepreneurial goals”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 11-34.
Gutmann, A. (1987), Democratic Education, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Halls, S. (2009), “Enterprise college open for business”, Financial Times, 22 September, p. 5.
Hannam, D. (1998), “Democratic education and education for democracy through pupil/student
participation in decision making in schools”, in Christie, D., Maitles, H. and Halliday, J. (Eds),
Values Education for Democracy and Citizenship, Gordon Cook Foundation/University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Hartshorn, C. and Hannon, P. (2005), “Paradoxes in entrepreneurship education: talk and chalk or
chalk and cheese?”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 47 Nos 8/9, pp. 616-27.
ET
52,1
16
Hayek, F.A. (1944), The Road to Serfdom, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Hayek, F.A. (1960), The Constitution of Liberty, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004), “What is ‘enterprise education’? An analysis of the objectives
and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries”,
EducationþTraining, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 11-23.
Iredale, N. (1993), “Enterprise education in primary schools: a survey in two northern LEAs”,
EducationþTraining, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 22-9.
Iredale, N. (1999), “Work-related education in primary schools: a study of industry’s attitudes and
teacher motivation”, unpublished thesis, University of Durham, Durham.
Iredale, N. (2002), “Enterprise education: a brie?ng paper”, available at: www.enterprise-impact.
org.uk/pdf/EnterpriseEducation.pdf
Jones, B. and Iredale, N. (2006), “Developing an entrepreneurial life skills summer school”,
Innovations in Teaching and Learning International, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 233-44.
Kant, I. (1990), Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 2nd ed., Macmillan, London (trans. by
Beck, L.W.).
Lambert, R. (2003), Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, HM Treasury, London.
Levie, J. (1999), Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education in England: A Survey,
Department for Education and Employment and London Business School, London.
Locke, J. (1979), Treatise on Civil Government and a Letter concerning Toleration (edited by
Sherman, C.L.), Irvington, New York, NY.
Matlay, H. (2006), “Researching entrepreneurship and education. Part 2: what is entrepreneurship
education and does it matter?”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 48 Nos 8/9, pp. 704-18.
Mill, J.S. (1859), On Liberty, (Ed. Shield, C.V.), Bobbs Merrill Library of Liberty Art, Indianapolis,
IN (1956 edition).
Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State and Utopia, Blackwell, Oxford.
Ofsted (2004), Learning to Be Enterprising; An Evaluation of Enterprising Learning at Key Stage 4,
HMI 2148, Report, 5 June, Ofsted, Manchester.
Policy Watch (2006), “That speech in retrospect: the 30th anniversary of Callaghan’s historic
Ruskin speech”, Edexel, 23 October.
Price, A. (2004), Institute for Enterprise CETL Stage 2 Bid, HEFCE, Leeds Metropolitan
University, Leeds.
Rae, D. (2007), “Connecting enterprise and graduate employability challenges to the higher
education culture and curriculum?”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 49 Nos 8/9, pp. 605-19.
Rand, A. (1961), For the New Intellectual, Signet, New York, NY.
Rand, A. (1964), The Virtue of Sel?shness, Signet, New York, NY.
Scottish Executive (2001), “Lessons in enterprise for primary schools”, available at: www.
scotland.gov.uk/
Teachernet (2008), “National guidance on enterprise education”, available at: www.teachernet.
gov.uk
Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Mariotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. and Sepulveda, A. (2009),
“Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs, unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet
the global challenges of the 21st century: a report of the global education initiative”, paper
presented at World Economic Forum, Geneva, April.
Whiteley, T. (1995), “Enterprise in higher education – an overview from the Department for
Education and Employment”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 4-8.
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
17
Further reading
Atherton, A. (2006), “Memorandum (written evidence) to the United Kingdom Parliament Select
Committee on International Development”, February, London.
Centre for Research in Social Policy (2002), “Self-employment as a route off bene?t”, Research
Report No. 177, Department for Work and Pensions, London.
Davies, H. (2002), A Review of Enterprise and the Economy in Education, HM Treasury, London.
Department for Education and Employment (1998), The Learning Age: A Renaissance for a New
Britain, Cm 3790, HMSO, London.
Department for Education and Skills (2004), Every Child Matters: Change for Children, DfES
Publications, Nottingham.
Department for Education and Skills (2005), Every Child Matters: An Overview of
Cross-Government Guidance, DfES Publications, Nottingham.
Department of Trade and Industry (1998), Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge
Driven Economy, Cm 4176, The Stationery Of?ce, London.
Deuchar, R. (2004), “Changing paradigms – the potential of enterprise education as an adequate
vehicle for promoting and enhancing education for active and responsible citizenship:
illustrations from a Scottish perspective”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 223-39.
European Commission (1996), Teaching and Learning towards the Learning Society, White
Paper, European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission (2002), Final Report of the Expert Group Best Procedure, Project on
Education and Training for Entrepreneurship, Brussels, November.
European Commission (2006), Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme. Fostering
Entrepreneurial Mindsets through Education and Training, COM (2006) 33 Final,
Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
Friedman, M. (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Gibb, A.A. (2002), “Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship: living
with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity”, Industry and
Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 3.
Heery, E. and Salmon, J. (2000), “The insecurity thesis”, in Heery, E. and Salmon, J. (Eds),
The Insecure Workforce, Routledge, London, pp. 1-24.
Jones, B. and Iredale, N. (2008), “Case study: international development in Ukraine”, Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 387-401.
National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (2009), available at: www.ncge.com/home.php
(accessed 8 May 2009).
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1989), Towards an Enterprising
Culture: A Challenge for Education and Training, Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development, Paris.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001), Putting the Young in Business:
Policy Challenges for Youth Entrepreneurship, Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development, Paris.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
ET
52,1
18
About the authors
Brian Jones is Senior Lecturer at Leeds Business School, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK. He
has a BA (Honours) in Sociology from the University of Durham, an MA in Industrial Relations
from the University of Warwick and a SERC/ESRC-funded PhD from the University of Bradford.
He holds a PGCE with Quali?ed Teacher Status and taught in schools on Teesside for six years.
He worked as a Research Of?cer for the Education and Skills Analysis Branch of the British
Government’s Employment Department. He previously lectured in Industrial Management at the
University of Bradford. Prior to his current post he was Programme Director Vocational
Education at Durham Business School, University of Durham, where he secured funding and
managed a range of enterprise education programmes and projects locally, nationally and
internationally. His research areas of interest are wide-ranging and cut across the
business-management and social sciences. Brian Jones is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: [email protected]
Norma Iredale was a classroom practitioner for many years before moving to Durham
Business School, University of Durham, where she worked for 15 years with the Enterprise
Education and Learning Team as Programme Director. She is currently a self-employed
Enterprise Education Consultant.
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
19
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.
doc_107389858.pdf
On this detailed file resolve viewpoint enterprise education as pedagogy brian jones.
VIEWPOINT
Enterprise education as pedagogy
Brian Jones
Leeds Business School, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK, and
Norma Iredale
Enterprise Education Consultant, Chester-le-Street, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to suggest that the most appropriate way to construe the concept of
enterprise education is from a pedagogical viewpoint. Enterprise education as pedagogy is argued to
be the most appropriate way to think about the concept and serves to demarcate it from
entrepreneurship education, which is very much about business start-up and the new venture creation
process.
Design/methodology/approach – Enterprise education is underpinned by experiential action
learning that can be in, outside and away from the normal classroom environment. It can be delivered
across a range of subject areas throughout different phases of education.
Findings – Enterprise and entrepreneurship education are perceived to be con?ated terms that for
many in the education and business communities mean much the same thing. Adopting an enterprise
education approach allows greater pupil/student ownership of the learning process.
Practical implications – Enterprise education as pedagogy advocates an approach to teaching
where speci?c learning outcomes differ across and between different educational phases and subject
areas but which has a clear and coherent philosophical underpinning.
Originality/value – Enterprise education should not be equated solely with business, as it is a
broader, deeper and richer concept. The theoretical import of the paper is in part a plea for a more
rigorous, practically informed analysis of the different strands (pedagogy, entrepreneurship,
citizenship and civic responsibility) that make up enterprise education. The paper also sets out the case
for a more critical analysis of enterprise education.
Keywords Business enterprise, Education, Entrepreneurialism, Teaching
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
This paper looks at issues around enterprise education and in so doing offers
description, explanation and critical analysis of the concept. In discussing the
enterprise education debate it teases out the similarities and differences with
entrepreneurship education and explores how these concepts might be better
understood. The recent World Economic Forum report, “Educating the next wave of
entrepreneurs” (Volkmann et al., 2009) clearly sets out the case for entrepreneurship
education. Whilst the World Economic Forum report looks at entrepreneurship
education as a global concept the focus here is primarily on enterprise education in the
UK. This is an issue that is particularly current and relevant given the government’s
recent launch of the National Enterprise Academy, which “will offer the UK’s ?rst
accredited courses in enterprise and entrepreneurship” (Halls, 2009, p. 5).
In Britain the last 30 years has seen an increased focus on the introduction of
enterprise education to the curriculum throughout all phases of education, in part to
help address the need for a trained, skilled workforce able to operate in a more ?exible
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
7
Education þ Training
Vol. 52 No. 1, 2010
pp. 7-19
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912
DOI 10.1108/00400911011017654
labour market where self-employment, starting a business or working for a small to
medium-sized enterprise (SME) are encouraged. This focus has usually been in the
form of a recommendation, but most recently it has been introduced as a compulsory
element at Key Stage 4[1] of the National Curriculum in England. Scotland has seen the
value of introducing enterprise as part of the curriculum in all phases beginning at
primary school level (Scottish Executive, 2001, p. 1). Their raison d’e ˆtre is “to identify
the next generation of entrepreneurs”, but they also see the need for children to be
equipped with “the creativity and adaptability to thrive in an ever-changing world”
(Scottish Executive, 2001). In primary schools in England there is no compulsion to
teach enterprise, although it is looked upon with favour by Ofsted inspectors (Ofsted,
2004), who see it as enriching the curriculum overall. In recent years also a greater
emphasis has been placed on introducing enterprise education into universities,
perhaps most notably evident in the Enterprise in Higher Education initiative[2]. The
value is seen to lie in the way in which young people can be helped to overcome some of
the more recent changes in employment structures while at the same time assisting
with the building of a strong economy. Enterprising qualities are also viewed as being
essential in relieving the stress of some of the social issues that have emerged from the
rapid changes in society. This paper adds to the ongoing debate around the meaning,
nature and purpose of enterprise (Hytti and O’Gorman, 2004; Rae, 2007) and
entrepreneurship (Matlay, 2006; Volkmann et al., 2009) education.
The paper begins by setting the context in which enterprise education was
introduced to the UK and its origins are traced back to James Callaghan’s Ruskin
College Speech of 1976. It then touches on and makes brief mention of subsequent
salient developments in UK education policy before outlining the rationale and
importance of education-business links. The crux of the argument is then presented
through an explanation and analysis of the key differences between entrepreneurship
and enterprise education. A critical analysis of the enterprise-entrepreneurship
education concept is presented and a way forward is identi?ed.
Context
The origins of enterprise education in the UK
The past 30 years or more have seen a greater involvement by government in
education than in the past, and arguably this stemmed from the speech delivered by
James Callaghan at Ruskin College, Oxford in 1976. Included in the concerns he voiced
at that time was that young people leaving school did not ?t the requirements of
industry, and Callaghan was of the view that new skills were needed (Callaghan, 1976).
In his speech Callaghan declared that the goals of education from nursery school
through to adult education were clear enough, in that they should equip children to the
best of their ability for a lively, constructive place in society, and ?t them to do a job of
work – not one or the other, but both. This is often alluded to as the beginning of the
change process in education-industry work, though some see it as the announcement of
change rather than the cause (Iredale, 1999, p. 19).
This perceived shortfall in employability skills, together with rapid societal and
economic change brought about by the decline of traditional industries and the
emergence of new patterns of work, was an additional concern, as were some of the
methods employed by teachers in schools, which were seen as overly progressive.
Although the Ruskin speech was in part aimed at stimulating debate on education, it
ET
52,1
8
conspired to bring about an unprecedented amount of state-led restructuring of the UK
system. Initially reform was most evident in the introduction of a National Curriculum,
which aimed to ensure that all young people were equipped with “the basic tools to do
the job required” (Policy Watch, 2006). The speech also led to the introduction of
initiatives such as TVEI[3] (Technical and Vocational Education Initiative), which
sought to target young people with skills outside the traditional curriculum and
encourage those who might be less academically inclined. It was initiatives like TVEI,
which were more generally seen as part of a “new vocationalism”, that laid the
foundation for enterprise education. The complex changes taking place in the British
economy and society and the associated issues of social, economic and political concern
have resulted in a continued debate by politicians as to how these matters might be
resolved. Enterprise education has emerged as one response and as a consequence this
has been offered in a variety of forms over the years to a greater or lesser extent to a
wide range of individuals.
In the UK one of the government’s key economic and educational objectives is to
help secure a skilled productive workforce able to act in an enterprising way
(Department of Trade and Industry, 2000, 2001; Department of Trade and
Industry/Department for Education and Employment, 2001). One of the ways in
which this can be achieved is by ensuring that the education system gives a proper
foundation for work either as an employed or a self-employed person. The UK
government’s Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative (Whiteley, 1995) is one
example of a policy designed to give education a more vocational focus. Partnerships
between education and business have been encouraged by government as they are seen
to offer opportunities to make education more relevant to life and work, to raise
standards and levels of attainment, to raise enterprise awareness and business
understanding amongst teachers and students, and to inform and develop advice and
counselling so that individuals are better placed to build on and use their skills. The
UK government’s view is that enterprise education provides the means to change
educational systems and standards to produce more people with higher-level general
skills better able to operate in an enterprising way so as to take advantage of
opportunities emerging from the new ?exible market economy. It operates with the
intention of changing the way people are taught as well as what they learn. The
pedagogy is not subject speci?c but can be introduced and applied across the
curriculum (Iredale, 1993, 2002; Ofsted, 2004).
The value of education business links
Enterprise education assists, develops and improves links between education and
business and brings greater coherence to their activities. It is a key element of work
related learning and is a statutory requirement at key stage 4 (see Department for
Education and Skills, 2003). Increasingly employers are encouraged to deepen their
links with schools, colleges and universities. They seek to promote more effective
education-business collaboration and mutual understanding, by developing better
two-way contacts that bene?t both education and industry and involve employers
more centrally in young people’s education. One aim of enterprise education is to
increase employer, especially small-medium enterprise involvement in schools,
colleges and universities. Work placements, business start-up simulations, mock
interviews, research and consultancy projects, careers talks, business ideas generation,
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
9
mentoring, preparation of curricula vitae, business planning along with advice on
presentations and job applications are areas in which employers can be involved. All of
the aforementioned activities are examples as to how enterprise education can be
embedded within different curriculum contexts.
Enterprise educators help to increase young people’s awareness of the world of
work including knowledge of small and medium-sized enterprises, the society of which
they are a part and provide insight into entrepreneurship. The result is the
incorporation of good working and community practices in student goals. These can
facilitate the transition to work (be that in an employed or self-employed capacity) and
life beyond as an engaged, enterprising citizen and member of a community.
The problem: enterprise or entrepreneurship education?
It is contested here that enterprise education is a chimera that can mean all things to all
people. Enterprise and entrepreneurship are often used interchangeably and this causes
much confusion. Ofsted recommends that “schools should establish a clear de?nition”
“that is understood by all involved” and suggests “enterprise education consists of
enterprise capability supported by better ?nancial capability and economic and business
understanding” (Ofsted, 2004; Teachernet, 2008). Atherton (2004) has recognised the
need to separate or unbundle the terms. The need to differentiate the terms to identify the
similarities and differences of purpose between them is evident. There are numerous
de?nitions to be found in various publications, however Price (2004, p. 4) offers the
following view of enterprise, entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship:
Enterprise is an inclusive concept, which provides both the context in which subject
disciplines can be explored, as well as an approach, through skill development, which can be
taken to the exploration and discovery of a discipline. In these respects, it can provide a
challenging environment within which to explore a variety of teaching areas (the small
business context) as well as provide a dimension to learning, that of developing the skills of
being enterprising, which provide students with an attitude towards learning, which rewards
and supports innovation, change and development.
Enterprise supports the recognition of new market opportunities as well as develops the
opportunity to change and develop at the individual, business and industry/sector levels.
This includes the exploration of new ideas and developments from a corporate perspective (as
intrapreneurship) as well as the creation of new ventures, social programmes and the
exploration of new opportunities (Price, 2004, p. 4).
More succinctly – enterprise education aims to maximise opportunities for the
development of enterprising skills, behaviours and attributes (Gibb, 1993) in young
people in the expectation that these will be utilised, deployed and developed at some
future point whatever their career choice might be while entrepreneurship education is
aimed more at encouraging people to start a business.
As noted above the terms enterprise education and entrepreneurship education are
often used interchangeably by policy makers and in much academic discourse. It is
contested here that to minimise the potential for confusion, to aid understanding and
grow knowledge there is a need for greater clarity. Below we tease out the different foci
and emphasis given to enterprise and entrepreneurship education.
The primary focus of entrepreneurship education is on:
.
how to start a business including the key processes of business start-up;
.
how to plan and launch a new business venture;
ET
52,1
10
.
how to grow and manage a business;
.
enhancing the necessary skills and behaviours needed to run a business;
.
the deployment of entrepreneurial skills and knowledge in a business context;
.
imminent use of the knowledge and skills needed to start a business; and
.
self-employment.
The primary focus of enterprise education is on:
.
an active learning enterprise education pedagogy;
.
knowledge needed to function effectively as a citizen, consumer, employee or
self-employed person in a ?exible market economy;
.
the development of personal skills, behaviours and attributes for use in a variety
of contexts;
.
the person as an enterprising individual – in the community, at home, in the
workplace or as an entrepreneur;
.
the use of enterprising skills, behaviours and attributes throughout the life
course; and
.
how a business, particularly a small business works.
Entrepreneurship education focuses primarily on the needs of the entrepreneur,
whereas enterprise education addresses the requirements of a wider range of
stakeholders, including consumers and the community. However, the key difference
between the two terms is that the primary focus of entrepreneurship education is on
starting, growing and managing a business, whereas the primary focus of enterprise
education is on the acquisition and development of personal skills, abilities and
attributes that can be used in different contexts and throughout the life course. The UK
National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) reinforces this point:
The enterprise concept focuses upon the development of the “Enterprising Person and
Entrepreneurial Mindset”. The former constitutes a set of personal skills, attributes,
behavioural and motivational capacities which can be used in any context (social, work,
leisure etc) (see www.ncge.com/home.php).
The NCGE continues:
The entrepreneurial concept focuses upon the application of enterprising skills in the context
of setting up a new venture, developing/growing an existing venture and designing an
entrepreneurial organisation (one in which the capacity for effective use of enterprising skills
will be enhanced) (see www.ncge.com/home.php).
A key differentiator between entrepreneurship and enterprise education lies in the
pedagogical approach adopted. Entrepreneurship education might, for example, use
traditional didactic approaches (Jones and Iredale, 2006) to the teaching and learning of
business ideas generation, business planning and the new venture creation process. In
contrast, enterprise education takes a more creative, innovative pedagogical approach
that utilises experiential action learning methods. The scope and practice of enterprise
education is much broader than entrepreneurship education, which is overly focused
on how to start a business.
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
11
The use of enterprise education pedagogy can be used across subject areas and
throughout different phases of education. In contrast, entrepreneurship education is
primarily delivered through subjects like business or economic studies at secondary
and further education levels or via business school modules at university level. Using
creative, action and experiential learning pedagogies means that the enterprise
education approach can be applied in different teaching and learning contexts, through
different subject areas (see the example of biology enterprise in Hartshorn and Hannon,
2005) to best meet different pupils/students needs. Entrepreneurship education
delivered, for example, through business start-up or business planning modules is
often a bolt-on to existing business education provision and is a topic area, or subject
matter, in its own right. In contrast, enterprise education as pedagogy can underpin a
raft of subject areas across all phases of the curriculum. This poses a number of
challenges but also creates a number of opportunities.
The role of the teacher/lecturer and the teaching environment are of great
importance when introducing enterprise education. Unlike traditional didactic
learning, enterprise education focuses on the process. Rather then imparting
knowledge or passing on information in a situation where the students are passive and
uninvolved, a situation is created where the teacher acts as a facilitator, guiding the
students through the process of learning, allowing them the opportunity to think and
act independently. This can often be dif?cult for a teacher/lecturer who has been
accustomed to directing the learning process. The challenge for the teacher/lecturer is
to develop a teaching style that encourages learning by doing, exchange, experiment,
positive mistake-making, calculated risk-taking, creative problem-solving and
interaction with the outside world. Students and pupils also need to learn to adapt
to this distinctive approach to teaching and learning, which requires interaction and
independent thought.
Enterprise education in practice varies within and between different phases of
education. In general a range of enterprising pedagogical approaches are deployed
within different teaching and learning contexts. Classroom dynamics and speci?c
practices are adapted according to the teaching and learning objectives, student needs,
abilities and context.
Enterprise education has obvious links with entrepreneurship but it is more than
simply about starting a business. The enterprise educational pedagogical approach
advocates action, experiential learning styles and as much as anything else it is about
the broad notion of citizenship and civic responsibilities. At the same time it allows for
the introduction of aspects of work-related learning. This also is a focus for
government policy and intervention and has been incorporated into the curriculum
alongside enterprise education[4].
Adopting an enterprise education pedagogy accords with liberal educational ideals
whilst entrepreneurship education has at its theoretical base libertarian values. Liberal
educational ideals have personal liberty and freedom at their core and can be traced
back to the work of Mill (1859) and Locke (1979). Libertarian values also stress the
importance of liberty but focus on individual rights (Hayek, 1944, 1960; Nozick, 1974;
Rand, 1961, 1964) and entitlements. Libertarianism has been closely associated with
“neo-liberalism” and the “new-right”. Entrepreneurship education advocates
self-employment and promotes new business start-up. The subliminal message is a
libertarian one which argues that the state can only do so much and that the private
ET
52,1
12
sector and individuals are best placed to create wealth, as well as to deliver innovation
and change. In contrast, the emphasis of enterprise education pedagogy is on the
freedom of the individual to change, grow, develop, act on and adapt to opportunities,
circumstances and contexts.
Despite the various claims and assertions as to the bene?ts of enterprise education,
it is the case that a thorough going critique of the concept is overdue. A tentative start
is made here to lay the foundations for a more critical analysis of the enterprise and
entrepreneurship education concepts, and it is suggested that more needs to be done in
this regard. Critical informed analysis should ultimately feed into change, development
and improvement at theoretical, policy and practice levels.
Enterprise education undoubtedly faces a number of challenges. Its close af?nity
to and relationship with entrepreneurship (business start-up) education is a source
for confusion over its remit and purpose. It is almost certainly the case that for
many teachers, lecturers, pupils and students enterprise and entrepreneurship
education are perceived as being one and the same thing. It is also worthy of note
that enterprise education itself remains a contested concept given the pedagogical
similarity of approach it bears to established methods of action and experiential
learning.
The way forward
Learning through enterprise
The principal argument advanced in this paper is to reinforce and champion the need
to shift from traditional to enterprising modes of teaching and learning, uncluttered by
distracting and unhelpful con?ations with entrepreneurship education. Enterprise
education encompasses a range of changes in educational practices as well as the
nature of the teacher-learner relationship. Enterprise educational restructuring
involves two dimensions:
(1) changes in the curriculum; and
(2) changes in the techniques of teaching and learning.
Compared with traditional didactic educational methods, enterprise education shifts
learner expectations and can require teacher input to explain the processes and issues
involved.
The introduction, change and reorganisation of enterprise education is occurring at
primary, secondary, further and higher education levels (Lambert, 2003; Levie, 1999).
The objectives across all sectors are to all intents and purposes broadly the same: to
encourage a more enterprising approach to teaching and learning across all curriculum
subject areas. However, curriculum delivery, expectations and assessment of
enterprise educational outcomes vary within the different education sectors and
subject areas. It is important to recognise that enterprise education is very much about
reshaping and renegotiating the terms and conditions of the whole teaching and
learning experience. The pace, methods, tools and ways of working are changed for
both teacher and learner. Traditional techniques of teaching and ways of working do
still have a role to play. The balance of power between teacher and learner remains a
constant zero sum co-dependent relationship of equals. Using techniques of enterprise
education in no way diminishes teachers authority or standing and equally, nor does it
diminish students’ quest to learn.
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
13
Enterprise education can be said to operate at two levels:
(1) it can be perceived in an abstract way as an idea, a philosophy and an approach
to teaching and learning; and
(2) it can be explored in a contextual classroom level where enterprise educational
ideals are translated into pedagogical practice.
As a generalised philosophy its actual practice is loose, decentralised, non-prescriptive
and ?uid. Enterprise education practice within the same educational phase is
inevitably open to change in part to meet the speci?c needs of different classroom
practitioners, and learner requirements as well as to meet whole school, college or
university expectations. It has broad strategic aims but within the overall strategy
there exist speci?c and substantive objectives.
Freedom. The ideal of freedom (Kant, 1990; Berlin, 1990) is a big incentive and
motivator for introducing programmes of enterprise education. Enterprise education
helps promote and extend freedom via a pedagogy which encourages participation,
learning by doing and asking questions; but it also promotes freedom in that it
establishes the right to start or not start a business – it helps to demonstrate that
employment in the SME sector can be a positive and rewarding experience and in so
doing, by default challenges the role of the state and big business as monopoly
providers of goods, services and employment. Enterprise education’s focus on the
small to medium-sized enterprise sector serves as a counterbalance to the corporate
worldview. Enterprise education acts as a liberator of ideas and calls into question
certain taken-for-granted erroneous assumptions about work, employment and the
nature of a market economy.
Citizenship. The content combined with the pedagogical approach and practices of
enterprise education contribute to the creation of a democratic learning environment
(Hannam, 1998). It thus fosters democratic citizenship (Dewey, 1987; Gutmann, 1987)
and community responsibility, and can help resolve common problems (Deuchar,
2007). Enterprise education has a role to play in both community development and
promoting an enabling market environment. It is relevant to not-for-pro?t
organisations, can help empower members of the community and can further the
notion of the good society. Enterprise education helps promote the idea of freedom and
opportunity. It does so via the pedagogy of enterprise education, which is very much
directed at empowering individual learners to take ownership and responsibility for
their own learning.
Critical assessment of impact
A second argument sits comfortably with the above advocacy of enterprise education
as pedagogy. To a large extent, recent enterprise and entrepreneurship initiatives,
wherever located in the curriculum, have been heavily dependent on public ?nance.
Educational, enterprise and entrepreneurship policy makers have allocated and spent
public money on the premise that enterprise and entrepreneurship education can make
a difference to life chances and business opportunities. There is a very real danger that
enterprise/entrepreneurship education comes to be perceived as a universal,
all-embracing panacea that can address economic and societal structural
inequalities. There has been and remains within the academic and policy
community an uncritical acceptance of government largesse in enterprise and
ET
52,1
14
entrepreneurship education. This is particularly surprising given the number of
interventions, the amounts of public money spent, the contested nature of the concepts
along with their questionable worth and doubts surrounding their measurable impact.
The academic community has a moral burden to bear in to date largely failing to
critically comment on and call to account government spending in this area.
The current conceptual and practice ambiguities that characterise enterprise and
enterprise education initiatives, however, present a critical stumbling-block in
advancing evidence-based assessment of value. Of course, a fundamental question is
“How might one measure the value of enterprise education”?. While the success or
otherwise of entrepreneurship education might be measured, for example by the
number of new businesses formed, a robust means of establishing the impact of
enterprise education has yet to be determined. However, to avoid the accusation that
enterprise education is built on assertion and unsubstantiated claims, a
thorough-going, comprehensive, evidence-based evaluation of past and current
initiatives and programmes is indeed overdue. A clear “de-coupling” of enterprise and
entrepreneurship education is a key ?rst step in facilitating such evaluation efforts.
Conclusions
The British government’s strategic enterprise and entrepreneurial intentions are
delivered and realised at classroom level in different education sectors. The
government has and continues to promote and encourage the provision of enterprise
and entrepreneurship education through a range of initiatives and curriculum
developments. This paper has addressed a conceptual ambiguity in how the
terminology is used in policy deliberations and developed in terms of practice
initiatives. All too often the terms are con?ated, with resultant ambiguity of what
exactly is being sought, promoted and developed and with consequential failures to
assess impact and value. Enterprise and entrepreneurship are most appropriately
understood and practised as different; with different goals and different means to
achieving these goals. Through greater conceptual clarity, a way forward is offered.
This paper has sketched a future agenda in which enterprise as pedagogy offers clarity
for policy developments throughout primary, secondary, further and higher education.
Of course, to be effective and achieve maximum impact it is important that these
different phases of education (primary, secondary, further and higher) employ and
utilise enterprise education in ways that are relevant, appropriate and ?t for purpose in
relation to students’ needs at these different levels. Nonetheless, uncoupled from
entrepreneurship education, enterprise education can be pursued with clarity and
purpose and a basis established from which rigorous assessment of impact can be
pursued, thus contributing to the further development of quality “enterprise”-based
teaching provision.
Notes
1. Key Stage 4 of the National Curriculum in England is aimed at school years 10 and 11. It
covers GCSEs and the new national diplomas and other accredited quali?cations.
2. The Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative was funded by the UK government’s
Employment Department and ran from 1988 to 1996. Through the encouragement of
personal development and the improvement of students’ generic skills the initiative sought
to give a more vocational orientation to a range of higher education programmes.
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
15
3. The Technical andVocational EducationInitiative, ?rst pilotedin1983, was one of anumber of
initiatives set up to help align education more closely to the “needs” of industry and commerce
andrectify some of the knowledge, skill andattitude de?cits of school leavers. Other initiatives
over the years include the DTI’s Enterprise and Education Initiative, Compacts, Enterprise in
Higher Education, Enterprise and Education Advisers, Technical Vocational Educational
Initiative (TVEI), Careers Guidance, Teacher Placement Service and Economic Awareness in
Teacher Education Programme, Work Related Curriculum Programme, the Training Credit
Scheme, Schools Curriculum Industry Partnership (SCIP), Education Business Link
Organisations (EBLOs), Project Trident, Young and Mini Enterprise.
4. The statutory curriculum guidelines beginning September 2004 state that all pupils at KS4
are entitled to a programme of work-related learning and this should provide opportunities
for students to recognise, practise and develop their skills for enterprise and employability.
These are also included in Ofsted’s inspection guidelines (Department for Children, Schools
and Families).
References
Atherton, A. (2004), “Unbundling enterprise and entrepreneurship”, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, May, pp. 121-7.
Berlin, I. (1990), Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Callaghan, J. (1976), “Towards a national debate”, speech delivered at Ruskin College, Oxford,
18 October.
Department for Education and Skills (2003), Vocational and Work-related Learning at Key Stage 4
– Guidance for Managers in Schools and Colleges and Their Partners in the Community,
DfES Publications, Nottingham.
Department of Trade and Industry (2000), Excellence and Opportunity – A Science and Innovation
Policy for the 21st Century, White Paper, Cm 4814, The Stationery Of?ce, London.
Department of Trade and Industry (2001), Productivity in the UK: Enterprise and the Productivity
Challenge, HMSO, London.
Department of Trade and Industry/Department for Education and Employment (2001),
Opportunity for All in a World of Change: A White Paper on Enterprise, Skills and
Innovation, Cm 5052, HMSO, London.
Deuchar, R. (2007), Citizenship, Enterprise and Learning: Harmonising Competing Educational
Agendas, Trentham Books, Stoke-on-Trent.
Dewey, J. (1987), “Democracy and educational administration”, in Boydson, J.A. (Ed.),
John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale
and Edwardsville, IL.
Gibb, A.A. (1993), “The enterprise culture and education: understanding enterprise education
and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider entrepreneurial goals”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 11-34.
Gutmann, A. (1987), Democratic Education, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Halls, S. (2009), “Enterprise college open for business”, Financial Times, 22 September, p. 5.
Hannam, D. (1998), “Democratic education and education for democracy through pupil/student
participation in decision making in schools”, in Christie, D., Maitles, H. and Halliday, J. (Eds),
Values Education for Democracy and Citizenship, Gordon Cook Foundation/University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Hartshorn, C. and Hannon, P. (2005), “Paradoxes in entrepreneurship education: talk and chalk or
chalk and cheese?”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 47 Nos 8/9, pp. 616-27.
ET
52,1
16
Hayek, F.A. (1944), The Road to Serfdom, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Hayek, F.A. (1960), The Constitution of Liberty, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004), “What is ‘enterprise education’? An analysis of the objectives
and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries”,
EducationþTraining, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 11-23.
Iredale, N. (1993), “Enterprise education in primary schools: a survey in two northern LEAs”,
EducationþTraining, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 22-9.
Iredale, N. (1999), “Work-related education in primary schools: a study of industry’s attitudes and
teacher motivation”, unpublished thesis, University of Durham, Durham.
Iredale, N. (2002), “Enterprise education: a brie?ng paper”, available at: www.enterprise-impact.
org.uk/pdf/EnterpriseEducation.pdf
Jones, B. and Iredale, N. (2006), “Developing an entrepreneurial life skills summer school”,
Innovations in Teaching and Learning International, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 233-44.
Kant, I. (1990), Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 2nd ed., Macmillan, London (trans. by
Beck, L.W.).
Lambert, R. (2003), Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, HM Treasury, London.
Levie, J. (1999), Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education in England: A Survey,
Department for Education and Employment and London Business School, London.
Locke, J. (1979), Treatise on Civil Government and a Letter concerning Toleration (edited by
Sherman, C.L.), Irvington, New York, NY.
Matlay, H. (2006), “Researching entrepreneurship and education. Part 2: what is entrepreneurship
education and does it matter?”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 48 Nos 8/9, pp. 704-18.
Mill, J.S. (1859), On Liberty, (Ed. Shield, C.V.), Bobbs Merrill Library of Liberty Art, Indianapolis,
IN (1956 edition).
Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State and Utopia, Blackwell, Oxford.
Ofsted (2004), Learning to Be Enterprising; An Evaluation of Enterprising Learning at Key Stage 4,
HMI 2148, Report, 5 June, Ofsted, Manchester.
Policy Watch (2006), “That speech in retrospect: the 30th anniversary of Callaghan’s historic
Ruskin speech”, Edexel, 23 October.
Price, A. (2004), Institute for Enterprise CETL Stage 2 Bid, HEFCE, Leeds Metropolitan
University, Leeds.
Rae, D. (2007), “Connecting enterprise and graduate employability challenges to the higher
education culture and curriculum?”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 49 Nos 8/9, pp. 605-19.
Rand, A. (1961), For the New Intellectual, Signet, New York, NY.
Rand, A. (1964), The Virtue of Sel?shness, Signet, New York, NY.
Scottish Executive (2001), “Lessons in enterprise for primary schools”, available at: www.
scotland.gov.uk/
Teachernet (2008), “National guidance on enterprise education”, available at: www.teachernet.
gov.uk
Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Mariotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. and Sepulveda, A. (2009),
“Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs, unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet
the global challenges of the 21st century: a report of the global education initiative”, paper
presented at World Economic Forum, Geneva, April.
Whiteley, T. (1995), “Enterprise in higher education – an overview from the Department for
Education and Employment”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 4-8.
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
17
Further reading
Atherton, A. (2006), “Memorandum (written evidence) to the United Kingdom Parliament Select
Committee on International Development”, February, London.
Centre for Research in Social Policy (2002), “Self-employment as a route off bene?t”, Research
Report No. 177, Department for Work and Pensions, London.
Davies, H. (2002), A Review of Enterprise and the Economy in Education, HM Treasury, London.
Department for Education and Employment (1998), The Learning Age: A Renaissance for a New
Britain, Cm 3790, HMSO, London.
Department for Education and Skills (2004), Every Child Matters: Change for Children, DfES
Publications, Nottingham.
Department for Education and Skills (2005), Every Child Matters: An Overview of
Cross-Government Guidance, DfES Publications, Nottingham.
Department of Trade and Industry (1998), Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge
Driven Economy, Cm 4176, The Stationery Of?ce, London.
Deuchar, R. (2004), “Changing paradigms – the potential of enterprise education as an adequate
vehicle for promoting and enhancing education for active and responsible citizenship:
illustrations from a Scottish perspective”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 223-39.
European Commission (1996), Teaching and Learning towards the Learning Society, White
Paper, European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission (2002), Final Report of the Expert Group Best Procedure, Project on
Education and Training for Entrepreneurship, Brussels, November.
European Commission (2006), Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme. Fostering
Entrepreneurial Mindsets through Education and Training, COM (2006) 33 Final,
Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
Friedman, M. (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Gibb, A.A. (2002), “Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship: living
with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity”, Industry and
Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 3.
Heery, E. and Salmon, J. (2000), “The insecurity thesis”, in Heery, E. and Salmon, J. (Eds),
The Insecure Workforce, Routledge, London, pp. 1-24.
Jones, B. and Iredale, N. (2008), “Case study: international development in Ukraine”, Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 387-401.
National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (2009), available at: www.ncge.com/home.php
(accessed 8 May 2009).
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1989), Towards an Enterprising
Culture: A Challenge for Education and Training, Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development, Paris.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001), Putting the Young in Business:
Policy Challenges for Youth Entrepreneurship, Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development, Paris.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
ET
52,1
18
About the authors
Brian Jones is Senior Lecturer at Leeds Business School, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK. He
has a BA (Honours) in Sociology from the University of Durham, an MA in Industrial Relations
from the University of Warwick and a SERC/ESRC-funded PhD from the University of Bradford.
He holds a PGCE with Quali?ed Teacher Status and taught in schools on Teesside for six years.
He worked as a Research Of?cer for the Education and Skills Analysis Branch of the British
Government’s Employment Department. He previously lectured in Industrial Management at the
University of Bradford. Prior to his current post he was Programme Director Vocational
Education at Durham Business School, University of Durham, where he secured funding and
managed a range of enterprise education programmes and projects locally, nationally and
internationally. His research areas of interest are wide-ranging and cut across the
business-management and social sciences. Brian Jones is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: [email protected]
Norma Iredale was a classroom practitioner for many years before moving to Durham
Business School, University of Durham, where she worked for 15 years with the Enterprise
Education and Learning Team as Programme Director. She is currently a self-employed
Enterprise Education Consultant.
Enterprise
education as
pedagogy
19
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.
doc_107389858.pdf