Introduction: Contemporary perspectives on entrepreneurship education and training

Citation

Matlay, H. (2010), "Introduction: Contemporary perspectives on entrepreneurship education and training", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed.2010.27117daa.001

Introduction: Contemporary perspectives on entrepreneurship education and training

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Volume 17, Issue 4

It is now widely accepted that entrepreneurship and new venture creation are the driving force of economic growth. Entrepreneurship has also emerged as a significant source of new jobs as well as individual and national wealth creation. Universities worldwide provide a variety of entrepreneurship education courses and modules as part of their general or specialised provision. Universities are increasingly targeted by governments as a potential source of well educated and highly motivated entrepreneurs. Demand for entrepreneurship education provision is likely to continue to increase worldwide.

Most university graduates benefit from business related courses and a proportion target specific modules or courses in entrepreneurship education. Empirical evidence appears to support some government claims and assumptions: graduate entrepreneurs are more successful, earn better returns and their firms’ economic output is significantly higher than that of businesses owned and managed by lesser-educated individuals. In addition, graduate entrepreneurs tend to exhibit higher levels of entrepreneurial motivation and intent and are prepared to invest considerable resources into their new ventures. Consequently, graduate owned and managed small businesses tend to survive longer and grow at much higher rates than firms started and managed by non-academic entrepreneurs. Most importantly, from a graduate’s perspective, entrepreneurship seems to offer a feasible and arguably better or more challenging career alternative to underemployment or unemployment. As a result, a great deal of research attention has been focused, in recent years, on entrepreneurship education at all levels of the educational system. Much of it, however, tends to focus on provision at university level, in the hope that more and better courses would have a commensurably positive effect on the quantity and quality of graduate entrepreneurs entering the economy.

There exists a great deal of research evidence to substantiate various claims relating to the growth of the graduate entrepreneurship sector of the economy, both in industrially developed and developing countries. It is reassuring to note that recent research tends to support earlier findings, published during the 1980s and 1990s, that entrepreneurship education provided in UK HEIs encourages graduates to start their own businesses. The enabling and accelerating effects of entrepreneurship education on graduate entrepreneurship in the UK is well documented as well as widely acknowledged among a large segment of influential stakeholders. Similar findings have emerged in continental Europe, China, Asia, Australia and North America. As a long-term researcher in entrepreneurship education and training I can confirm that the majority of empirically rigorous research studies in this field strongly support the legitimisation process of this type of university-based education. Is therefore a need for another issue in this area of academic endeavour? I genuinely believe that there is…! When I sought advice on this aspect, from a large and varied sample of stakeholder interests, the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. At three recent specialist conferences speakers, audiences and other stakeholder representatives felt that entrepreneurship education was an emergent and fast growing field within the wider entrepreneurship topic and that more research and related dissemination were needed to facilitate its maturity and legitimacy. Clearly, this research topic is growing organically in response to strong demand from widely dispersed and representative stakeholder interest groups. As researchers, we must be responsive to growing demand as well as responsible for the quality and academic rigour of our research. This themed issue focuses on contemporary aspects of entrepreneurship education and training. It aims to make an empirically rigorous contribution to the rich and heterogeneous body of specialist knowledge that is emerging in this fast growing area of academic endeavour.

There are ten articles included in this themed issue, illustrative of the wide range of relevant topics and varied methodologies employed in entrepreneurship education research. In the opening feature, Jones raises the issue of value creation in entrepreneurship education. The author uses a critical realist approach to debate the ontological nature of entrepreneurship education. It emerges that students are aware of the limitations inherent in university based entrepreneurship education provision. He recommends that entrepreneurship educators should try to understand their students’ needs in order to develop better learning environments for their personal development. In the second article, Peltier and Scovotti present the results of a large-scale multinational study that examines the need to expand entrepreneurship education within the marketing curriculum. It emerges that a large proportion of marketing students intend to become entrepreneurs and feel positive about incorporating entrepreneurship education in their studies. The next paper focuses on entrepreneurial intentions among university students in the UK. Nabi, Holden and Walmsley found that a proportion of students within a large regional sample consistently exhibit an intention to start their own businesses. Interestingly, however, despite considerable efforts to increase their numbers, the authors have found that little impact was discernible. Measuring entrepreneurial intentions among students is therefore only partially useful in evaluating the impact of entrepreneurship education on graduate start-ups. Klapper and Tegtmeier present the results of a research study into innovative entrepreneurship teaching in France and in Germany. Based on two cross-cultural case studies, the authors have identified both commonalities and differences in entrepreneurship education. In the German case study, teaching entrepreneurship focused mainly on the practical aspects of new venture creation. In the French case, however, entrepreneurship education relied considerable on the repertory grid approach, as developed in George Kelly’s “Personal construct theory”. In the fifth article Millman, Li, Matlay and Wong examine the factors that motivate Chinese students’ attitudes and perceptions relating to their internet entrepreneurship intentions (IEIs). The authors found that demographic factors such as gender, household income and status were positively related to Chinese students’ explicit IEIs. Furthermore, the disciplines studied as well as knowledge of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and experience of online shopping were found to significantly influence these students’ IEIs.

In the sixth article, Rae explores the impact that various external factors can have on entrepreneurship education provision in universities. The author argues that the nature of entrepreneurship is shifting in response to changes in social and cultural movements in the new economic era. Ethical and environmental concerns are influencing and redirecting entrepreneurship education towards more responsible venture creation, management and growth, informed largely by social entrepreneurship. In the next paper, van Vuuren and Botha apply the constructs of an entrepreneurial performance training model to three distinct educational programmes:

1. 1.

   business start-up;

2. 2.

   basic entrepreneurship, and

3. 3.

   advanced entrepreneurship.

It emerges that there was improvement in business performance indicators in all three training groups. In addition, increased knowledge and skills transfer took place after respondents attended these programmes. In the eighth article Varadarajan Sowmya, Majumdar and Gallant evaluate the value of entrepreneurship education among first year Business Studies students from Australia, Portugal, Finland, Germany, Slovenia, Poland, England and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The results of their survey indicate that the majority of respondents exhibited entrepreneurial intentions. Furthermore, respondents felt that investment in university based entrepreneurship education was valuable and beneficial. In the next paper, O’Dwyer, Risquez and Ledwith explore entrepreneurship students’ perceptions of plagiarism and their ability to recognise and avoid it. It emerges that entrepreneurship educators are more concerned with plagiarism than their students. Interestingly, entrepreneurship students exhibit a clear understanding of plagiarism and relevant rules, but do not consider the use of unreferenced material as a breach of academic guidelines. In the “Point of view” feature Kickul, Griffiths and Bacq discuss how they have extended social innovation and impact learning to the field of entrepreneurship education. The authors demonstrate ways in which experiential learning can be adapted to social entrepreneurship education. Students’ selection and preparation emerges as an important aspect of social entrepreneurship education.

In progressing this themed issue towards publication, a number of individuals have actively supported my efforts. I would like to thank contributors, referees and advisors for their hard work and commitment to JSBED. I also with to express my gratitude to Ruth Heppenstall for her patience and understanding in relation to the tribulations and delays that hindered the timely submission of this themed issue.

Harry MatlayBirmingham City Business School, Birmingham, UK