Marina Dabić Maciej Pietrzykowski Editors
Fostering Education in Entrepreneurship Maja Bašić, Marina Dabić, M. Purificación García, Fernando Gaspar, Aleksandra Gaweł, Pablo Gutiérrez, Olivier Hueber, Barbara Jankowska, Ana Lanero, Lynn Martin, Reda Nausedaite, Mislav Ante Omazić, Maciej Pietrzykowski, Asta Pundziene, Miroslav Rebernik, Clare Schofield, Alexandra Sindler, Karin Širec, José Luis Vázquez, Rebeka Danijela Vlahov
Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe Poznań 2011
Reviewers: Prof. Maria Ángeles Montoro-Sánchez, Complutense University of Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Spain Prof. dr hab. Marek Rekowski, Poznań University of Economics, Faculty of Management, Poland The opinions expressed in the chapters are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the EU or the governments of its member countries. Acknowledgments Most of the chapters have been written by Partners of the International EU Tempus Joint Project 144713 “Fostering Entrepreneurship in Higher Education FoSentHE”, granted to the Consortium managed by Marina Dabić from the University of Zagreb Faculty of Economics and Business for the period 2009–2012. The editors are grateful to all the reviewers and authors for their contributions. We would like to express our gratitude to the European Commission for making this project possible and for co-financing the launch of this book. The editors would like to thank Mr Keith Stewart for his valuable assisstance in proofreading this book.
ISBN 978-83-62662-54-8 (HB) ISBN 978-83-62662-90-6 (e-book)
Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe ul. Górna Wilda 90 61-576 Poznań tel. +48 (61) 833 65 80 fax +48 (61) 833 14 68 e-mail:
[email protected] www.bogucki.com.pl Printed by: UNI-DRUK Print run 500 copies
Contents Marina Dabić, Maciej Pietrzykowski Can Entrepreneurship be brought from the 20th to the 21st century! A focus on Entrepreneurship Education through the FoSentHE 5e5 approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić Catching up through entrepreneurship education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Olivier Hueber Entrepreneurial education in France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Reda Nausedaite, Asta Pundziene An assessment of entrepreneurship education. The case of Lithuanian. . . . . . . . . . . 85 Aleksandra Gaweł, Barbara Jankowska Teaching entrepreneurship – an example from the Poznań University of Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Maciej Pietrzykowski Entrepreneurship in Higher Education – the case of Poland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García The role of the university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Lynn Martin, Clare Schofield The media, negative values and graduate enterprise education. Constructing student ideas about innovation and enterprise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Alexandra Sindler Cultural aspects for creative and powerful entrepreneurs: The experience of Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Fernando Gaspar Environmental determinants of entrepreneurship, regional development, and education in Portuguese NUT3 regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Mislav Ante Omazić, Rebeka Danijela Vlahov Educating entrepreneurs – a short overview of the most innovative classes, courses and programmes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Can Entrepreneurship be brought from the 20th to the 21st century! A focus...
Can Entrepreneurship be brought from the 20th to the 21st century! A focus on Entrepreneurship Education through the FoSentHE 5e5 approach Marina Dabić, Maciej Pietrzykowski
A substantial role for entrepreneurship in the economic development of any country is bound to initiate change in both the structure of business and society. There has been a steady growth in entrepreneurial activity in Europe in recent decades, though as yet not extensive enough. These include corporate, social, techno and individual entrepreneurship, among others. One of the crucial factors in this process is shaping the entrepreneurial mindset of young people to contribute to an increased number of innovative start-ups, especially SME’s which are the core of a modern economy. The relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth has been the subject of much research. The empirical results demonstrate a strong positive correlation between entrepreneurial activities and economic growth in highly developed economies (Karlson, Fris, and Paulson, 2005; Thurik, 2009). Since such positive correlation has been proven, entrepreneurship represents a special field for policy makers to implement into education systems. More entrepreneurs in a country/region means more possibilities for economic growth. Entrepreneurship has never been as important as it is today, as the world is faced by challenges of globalisation and a growing importance on being more competitive (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). The competitiveness of an economy depends on its ability to produce future leaders with entrepreneurial skills, thus enhancing the capacity to address issues in creative and innovative way. Entrepreneurship means not only setting up new companies and ventures but also a way of thinking and acting in a global environment, which boosts production, enhances social capital, and fosters technological progress as well as innovation.
5
Marina Dabić, Maciej Pietrzykowski
In the EU, innovation, entrepreneurship, and the role of Universities in fostering entrepreneurial education have been topics on the main Agenda since the 1990’s (Williams and Kitaev, 2005). This is how the European Commission perceives the issue, “Entrepreneurship refers to an individual’s ability to turn ideas into action. It includes creativity, innovation and risk taking, as well as the ability to plan and manage projects in order to achieve objectives. This supports everyone in day-to-day life at home and in society, makes employees more aware of the context of their work and better able to seize opportunities, and provides a foundation for entrepreneurs establishing a social or commercial activity” (COM, 2006). Education in entrepreneurship has not only economic, but also social implications. To equip young people with skills, to educate them to be active in business in order to shape reality by using their own hands and brains, is essential to ensure the wealth and well-being of a society in the long run. From a functional competencies aspect, an entrepreneur has to not only get customers to “buy-in”, but also employees, investors, and a host of other stakeholders – both current and prospective. Therefore, identifying, defining, and understanding the market should be a cornerstone of the courses. Furthermore, an entrepreneur has to deal with several different types of people and bring them together for an integrated purpose, while continuing to draw upon their individual and diverse strengths as they leverage complex interrelationships that evolve between them over time. Although European Commission policy as outlined in the Lisbon Strategy puts entrepreneurship at the centre of its focus, universities around Europe have made minor changes in their curricula to foster an environment of entrepreneurship. Today ’s university graduates are coming out with very little enthusiasm for entrepreneurship, and with very little sense of what is going on beyond their classroom walls. This significantly contributes to the problems of employment. Companies, particularly start-ups and those at an early stage, cannot find employees who have the right combination of technical, business and entrepreneurial skills and the passion necessary for quality performance. Myles Mace taught the first entrepreneurship course in the United States in February 1947 (Katz, 2003), and from that period higher education should have played a crucial role in respect of this issue. Founded in 1987, the European Forum for Entrepreneurship Research (EFER) fosters and promotes research and teaching in the field at institutions of higher education across Western and Eastern Europe. The realization of the Lisbon strategy should bring about an increase in employment as well as a growth in production in countries across the European Union. Thus a memorandum from the European Commission states that “Europe needs excellence in its universities, to optimise the processes which underpin the knowledge society and meet the target, set out by the European Council in Lisbon, of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” (Communication from the Commission – The role of the university in the Europe of Knowledge, Brussels, 2003). To meet the challenges of the contemporary world at the World Economic Forum in 2008, the Global Education Initiative launched a work stream, to advance 6
Can Entrepreneurship be brought from the 20th to the 21st century! A focus...
Entrepreneurship Education globally, as one of the key drivers of sustained social development and economic recovery. The mainstream has 4 major objectives (WEF, 2009, p. 9): –– Highlight and raise awareness of the importance of entrepreneurial education in spurring economic growth and in achieving the Millennium Development Goals; –– Consolidate existing knowledge and good practices in entrepreneurial education around the world in the form of a report to enable the development of innovative new tools, approaches and delivery methods; –– Provide recommendations to governments, academia, the private sector and other actors on the development and delivery of effective education programmes for entrepreneurship; –– Launch a process in which the recommendations can be discussed on the global, regional, national and local levels and implemented with the involvement of key stakeholders. The discussion at the World Economic Forum in 2010 in Brussels led to the creation of a manifesto built around seven pillars (WEF, 2010): 1. Transform the educational system through entrepreneurship. 2. Build policy commitment. 3. Develop institutional commitment. 4. Train, develop and motivate teachers. 5. Catalyse multi stakeholder partnership. 6. Leverage and scale good practices. 7. Strive for effective outcomes and impact. Weber’s work (1965, 1978) stresses the marginal position of groups and communities with a high level of entrepreneurial activity. A Higher Education system has to meet challenges and achieve goals (Chia, 1996). These are the challenges of today, within a global and strongly competitive market. The Bologna process can have a positive impact on the way entrepreneurial education is fostered. The 46 Bologna signatory countries met in London in May 2007, and recommended such measures as the recognition of non-formal learning, the development of flexible curricula to accommodate student and staff mobility, and an enhanced university-employer collaboration in innovation and knowledge transfer (European Commission, 2008). However, the process of implementation required changes to national educational systems, which can be painful and time consuming. Gibb (1993) showed that the term “entrepreneurship education” is commonly used in the USA and Canada but is not so common in Europe. Colton (1990) points out the need to distinguish between “small business and entrepreneurship education” and “enterprise education”. Gartner and Vesper (1994), as well as Smith and Peterson (2006), have given an explanation of entrepreneurship programmes in existing courses and research literature, which though not current, are still in use as examples of best practice. In 2005, Covin, J. C., from Kelley School of Business at Indiana University, was awarded the prestigious Entrepreneurship Mentor Award by the Academy of Management for his exemplary work in tutoring Ph.D. students and junior-level faculty in the field of entrepreneurship (web
7
Marina Dabić, Maciej Pietrzykowski
source). It is evident that entrepreneurship is not just about making money. It is about acting creatively and commercialising new ideas. We can conclude that best practice programmes offer different sets of activities grouped in different clusters, (Levie and Lichtenstein, 2008). 1. Entrepreneurship as a way of life, psychological and behavioural attributes (Curran and Stnworth,1989; Bennett, 2006); An emphasis on creative abilities (Fillis, 2000; Gielnik, 2009). 2. An emphasis on creative abilities (Markman, Balkin, and Baron, 2002). 3. Niche makes success possible (Toften and Hammervoll, 2010). 4. Business idea as a starting point – opportunity recognition (Krueger, 2000; Nixdorff and Solomon, 2007). 5. The main development fields of the entrepreneur and the realization of their development: measures of effectiveness (Sexton and Kasarda, 1992). 6. Main fields of enterprise activities and their development. 7. Building relationships with the business community (Acs and Sander, 2011). 8. Market analysis. 9. Cooperation with universities (Etzkowitz, 1998; Todorovic, McNaughton, and Guild, 2005). 10. Academic entrepreneurship (Shane, 2004); Social entrepreneurship (Alvord, Brown, and Letts, 2004). International Entrepreneurship (Giamartino et al., 1993). 11. Entrepreneurial culture (Gibb, 1993; Rae, Gee, and Moon, 2009). 12. Thought models for different modules – a holistic approach (Gibb, 1990). The Green Paper – entrepreneurship in Europe (European Economic and Social Committee, 203:18) emphasis this question: “How can education support the development of the awareness and skills necessary for developing an entrepreneurial mindset and skills (entrepreneurship training as part of a school’s curriculum, getting entrepreneurs in the classroom, apprenticeship for students to work with experienced entrepreneurs, more entrepreneurial training in universities, more MBA programmes, matching entrepreneurial training with research programmes)?” In short, the answer to this open question should be split into the following phases: The analysis phase (“know-how”): entrepreneurial examples pursued by successful companies should be examined and assessed with a view to developing and understanding the impacts of each variable and dimension in different circumstances as well as their relationships (know-how). A curriculum model must be developed to encourage more creative and innovative entrepreneurial behaviour, technology adoption and career choices. Abilities derived from “know-how” knowledge will enable students to maintain operations using current process structures. The synthesis phase (“know-why”): the current situation should be modelled. Here we need discussions with industry specialists involved in technology and project implementation with a view to assessing the current scope in both the breadth and depth of the subjects.
8
Can Entrepreneurship be brought from the 20th to the 21st century! A focus...
Quality control and monitoring (“know-what”): the best students with the strongest motivation for high quality achievements must be identified. The methodology is based on the application of a structured approach to the use of basic quality tools, and a recognition of which steps in problem solving can be sequentially linked. The course could be supported through ECTS credits. A constant relationship with the business community is a condition “sine qua non”. This will provide the findings in a manner that can be used for the education and training of the people concerned. The sustainability phase: in each phase the potential interactions between emerging policy trends used in various entrepreneurial mechanisms and other tools and concepts that have been applied successfully in real life projects will be analysed. The characteristics and uniqueness of the social system relative to the context would be of primary interest in this phase of the work. Each example will be assessed and characterized in terms of a number of dimensions (e.g. scope, nature, target), with their interactions and overlaps being analysed. On the other hand, sustainability can be also assessed through established networks, both academic and business as well as domestic and international. It seems clear that we have to ask some very basic questions: Has the role of courses been well defined? What is the potential and what are the problems? How are the stakeholders in the “triple–helix model” motivated to seek the information necessary for open dialogue? Does entrepreneurship education require a different focus on pedagogy or didactics? In order to gain more knowledge and understanding of the meaning of entrepreneurship, as well as entrepreneurial education policies and practices at universities, an analysis could begin by exploring how entrepreneurial courses have been involved in improving students’ knowledge, their future access to resources, influence, and career opportunities, as well as how they deal with managerial processes and structures in their start-ups. In this stream, we aim to bring together international scholars from many disciplines in order to understand how entrepreneurial education at universities affects entrepreneurial activity in future behaviour. The main problem with the traditional model of higher education is the insufficient adaptation of curricula to labour market needs, especially in solving the real problems of companies encountered by students. Current systems of education have to be transformed and adjusted to educate innovative people and equip them with the skills required for the future. However, it is no longer enough to simply celebrate how “many ” universities and high schools offer an entrepreneurship curriculum or degree. It has been apparent to us for some time now that the challenge is not one of social acceptance, but rather, of the quality of the entrepreneurship education being offered. Fostering quality entrepreneurship education in higher education requires commitment at the highest political level. A framework with strategic goals has to be built at the EU level and then gradually implemented in member countries. There is also a need to establish a common position and commitment at the university level, using for example the European University Association.
9
Marina Dabić, Maciej Pietrzykowski
To enhance the entrepreneurial spirit within higher education institutions and build strong connections with the local community and entrepreneurial ecosystem, new systems of training for teachers have to be delivered. Teachers have to transform their way of thinking, and use more experiential teaching methods and techniques, tightly linked to practitioners. We believe an extremely eclectic and holistic approach in terms of teaching techniques is required. There are at least two reasons for this. First, entrepreneurship integrates materials from all other functional areas and focuses on what it takes to make them all work together. It is perhaps the only true “synthetic” as opposed to “analytic” course in an entrepreneurship programme. Second, entrepreneurship is more like growing a rain forest than building a skyscraper. The internationalisation of the curricula at the very beginning requires dedicated work to be successfully undertaken. Teachers and students should be very well connected internationally and should be able to use various sources of information. Stimulating, facilitating and enhancing entrepreneurial activities and innovation is critical for continuing economic development in the EU. We encourage all teachers to work with students one-on-one outside the classroom so as to customize their training according to their preferred learning strategies. There is also a place for practitioners in the classroom. The aim of the FoSentHE project, resulting also in this book, is to identify major trends and exchange the best practices of entrepreneurship education within Europe, both for managerial education and for technical and vocational education. Through the 5 e 5 outcomes model (1st e – Entrepreneurial mindset // 2nd e – E-learning // 3rd e – Excellence // 4th e – E/E Centres // 5th e – European Network) partners elaborate and set up referential targets in entrepreneurship learning. The entrepreneurship ecosystem has many actors and everyone should be integrated into the learning system. The learning system should not only be more pragmatically and experientially oriented, but also much more technologically advanced. Learning, or even more specifically the transfer of knowledge in school, differs significantly from ways of learning at work. The adaptation of knowledge and skills to those demanded and expected by employers, requires the inclusion of businesses in the process of training using experiential teaching methods. Technology should integrate teachers and scientist across borders into networks, and be a source of good practices and examples of collaboration. Finally, there is a need for measuring the outcomes. The conceptual framework for a set of indicators has to be developed, which can be aligned across countries to provide a measure of the impact of entrepreneurship education on society. The main goal of this book was to gather and present a description of the infrastructure of European countries in terms of preconditions for entrepreneurship education, followed by cases of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial behaviour, attitude and partnership with business in higher education system. In the first chapter Miroslav Rebernik and Karin Širec look at entrepreneurship education in Slovenia. The discussion is based on two studies – the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey and the international study of students’ motivation for entrepreneurship. The discussion introduces the quadruple helix of entrepre10
Can Entrepreneurship be brought from the 20th to the 21st century! A focus...
neurship education to stress how important the main stakeholders are in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Then Marina Dabić and Maja Bašić examine interactive learning methods and techniques in Croatia. The authors conclude that many Universities are still lacking computer simulations, scenario playing, workshops via the Internet and many other interactive tools. One can safely assume that it is not only a problem in the Croatian educational system. Olivier Hubier in the next chapter presents various current education problems in France. There is still a gap between French Business Schools and public Universities. On the basis of the successful Cre@tude project launched by the University of Nice, Sophia Antipolis, the author, proposes some recommendations for the reform of French education. In the fourth chapter, Reda Nausedaite and Asta Pundziene from Lithuania describe the improvements in the country ’s educational system which recently celebrated its 20th anniversary. In those 20 years the educational system has tried to follow market needs and much has been accomplished. However, entrepreneurship training is further ahead than entrepreneurship education. The fifth and sixth chapters are devoted to the situation in Poland. In the fifth chapter, the author’s Aleksandra Gaweł and Barbara Jankowska outline their experiences with the specialization “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” launched at the Poznań University of Economics. The opinions of graduates, supported by the author’s experience and research results, can provide valuable tips as to how to organize and foster the teaching of entrepreneurship. In the next chapter, Maciej Pietrzykowski describes some barriers to implementing entrepreneurship in curricula, as well as presenting ways of overcoming them. The author also describes some entrepreneurial initiatives in Poland. In the seventh chapter, José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutierrez and María Purificación García aim to clarify the potential benefits of entrepreneurship education in the development of entrepreneurial vocations among future university graduates in Spain. The results of the study clearly reveal that universities under emphasize the important influence entrepreneurship education has on the future occupations of graduates. The next chapter, written by Lynn Martin and Clare Schofield, deals with the perception of entrepreneurship and innovation in the United Kingdom, with the aim of identifying how new media developments have impacted the process of constructing meaning around these terms. There are several opinions and discussions based on the empirical research at a UK university. Since entrepreneurship is considered as a behaviour influenced by cultural aspects, in the ninth chapter, Alexandra Sindler examines the results of a survey in Austria. The author describes factors that are of interest in developing a model of a creative working culture. Portugal, a country dealt with in the tenth chapter, differs not only regarding its economic potential, but also its level of entrepreneurship. Fernando Gaspar, using data available from GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor), analyses the reasons for this asymmetry and proposes some recommendations for local politicians to foster the education of entrepreneurship. The last chapter, written by Mislav Ante Omazić and Rebeka Danijela Vlahov, presents a brief overview of the most innovative educational courses on entrepreneurship.
11
Marina Dabić, Maciej Pietrzykowski
The authors attempt to discover whether entrepreneurship can be learnt. The book ends with some short biographical notes on all the authors.
References Acs Z.J.M., Sanders J.M., 2011. The Knowledge Network of International Entrepreneurship. Theory and Evidence. Small Business Economics, http://www.springerlink.com/ content/v00013330k021517/fulltext.pdf access March 2011. Alvord S.H., Brown L.D., Letts C.W., 2004. Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40(3): 260–282. Bennett R., 2006. Business lecturers’ perceptions of the nature of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 12(3): 165–188. Chia R., 1996. Teaching Paradigm Shifting in Management Education: University Business Schools and the Entrepreneurial Imagination. Journal of Management Studies 33(4): 409–428. Communication form Commission, 2003. The role of the university in the Europe of Knowledge, Brussels. Commission Communication, 2006. Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning. COM, 33 final. Curran J., Stanworth J., 1989. Education and Training for Enterprise: Some Problems of Clarification, Evaluation, Policy and Research. ISBJ 7(2): 11–22. Etzkowitz H., 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university – industry linkages. Research Policy 27(8): 823–834. European Commission, 2008. Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially within non-business studies. Final report of the Expert group, Brussels, p. 8. Fillis I., 2000. Being Creative at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface: Lessons from the Art Industry. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship 2(2): 125–137 Gartner W.B., Vesper K.H., 1994. Experiments in Entrepreneurship Education: Successes and Failures, Journal of Business Venturing, 9. Giamartino G.A., McDougall P., Bird P., Barbara J., 1993. International Entrepreneurship: The State of the Field. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 18. Gibb A.A., 1990. Universities, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Education: Towards a Holistic Approach (with Mohd. Salleh Hj Din). In Small Enterprise Development. An International Journal 1(4): 27–36. Gibb A.A., 1993. Enterprise culture and education: Understanding enterprise education and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals. International Small Business Journal 11(3). Gielnik M., Unger J.M., Keith N., Hilling C., Frese M., 2009. Deliberate practice among South African small business owners: Relationships with education, cognitive ability, knowledge, and success. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 82: 21–44. Johansson B., Karlsson C., Stough R.R., Stam E., 2008. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy. In: B. Nooteboom, E. Stam (eds). Micro-Foundations for Innovation Policy. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, Chicago University Press, Chicago. Karlson C., Fris C., Paulson T., 2005. Relating Entrepreneurship to Economic Growth, The Emerging Digital Economy: Entrepreneurship, Clusters and Policy, Springer-Verlag, (eds). Kruger N., 2000. The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice 25(83): 5–23.
12
Can Entrepreneurship be brought from the 20th to the 21st century! A focus...
Klandt H., 2010. Entrepreneurship Education: past and future of IntEnt. Plenary speech, Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training, http://www.intent2010.com/ sites/intent/, acces February 10th 2011. Levie J., Lichtenstein B.B., 2008. From Stages of Business Growth to a Dynamic states Model of Entrepreneurial Growth and Change, working paper http://www.strath.ac.uk/ huntercentre/ http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/departments/huntercentre/research/ workingpapers/media_146530_en.pdf access, March 2nd. 2011. Loucks K.E., Menzies T., Laval Y., 2000. The Evolution of Canadian University Entrepreneurship Education Curriculum over Two Decades. Proc. of Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference, Tampere, Finland, July 10–12, pp. 1–20. Online available: http://www.intentconference. de/DWD/_621/upload/media_1284.pdf (2008, October 5th). Markman G.D., Balkin D.B., Baron R.A., 2002. Inventors and new venture formation: The effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 149–165. Nixdorff J., Solomon G., 2007. Role of opportunity recognition in teaching entrepreneurship, March 22–24, NCIIA, 11th Annual Meeting, Tampa, FL. Rae D., Gee S., Moon R., 2009. Creating an enterprise culture in a university: the role of an entrepreneurial learning team. Industry and Higher Education 23(3): 183–197. Sexton D.L., Kasarda J.D., 1992. The state of the art of entrepreneurship. PWS-Kent, Boston. Shane S., Venkataraman S., 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25: 217–226. Shane S.C., 2004. Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation. Edward Egar, Cheltenham, UK. Smith K., Peterson J.L., 2006. What is educational entrepreneurship? In: F.M. Hess (ed.). Educational Entrepreneurship: Realities, Challenges, Possibilities. Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, Mass., p. 21–44. Thurik A.R., 2009. Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth and Policy in Emerging Economies. World Institute for Development Economic Research 12: 1–18. Todorovic W.Z., McNaughton R.B., Guild P.D., 2005. Making university departments more entrepreneurial: the perspective from within. International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Innovation 6(2): 115–122. Toften K., Hammervoll T., 2010. Niche marketing and strategic capabilities: an exploratory study of specialized firms. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 28(6): 736–753. Williams G., Kitaev I., 2005. Overview of national policy contexts for entrepreneurialism in higher education. Higher Education Management and Policy 17(3): 125–141. Wing T., Man J., 2010. Clarifying the Domain of Educational Entrepreneurship: Implications for Studying Leadership, Innovation and Change, http://www.ied.edu.hk/apclc/ roundtable2010/paper/Clarifying%20Educational%20Entrepreneurship-Thomas%20 Wing%20Yan%20MAN.pdf access December 5th, 2010. World Economic Forum – WEF, 2009. Global Education Initiatives, pp. 9. World Economic Forum – WEF, 2010. Global Education Initiative. Brussels, pp. 6–9. Web pages quoted http://edu.cengage.co.uk/catalogue/product.aspx?isbn=1111526915
13
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
Summary: This chapter discusses entrepreneurship education and training in Slovenia based on two studies – namely, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey and the international study of students’ motivation for entrepreneurship. Although Slovenia ranks relatively well in both studies in terms of global comparisons, the analysis of entrepreneurship education and training in Slovenia demands more targeted measures and better tailored entrepreneurship policies in this area, especially at the university level. In the second part of this chapter the entrepreneurship programme at the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Maribor is presented. The discussion introduces the quadruple helix of entrepreneurship education to stress the importance of the four main players in such education: the students, professors, entrepreneurs, and supportive infrastructure of the entrepreneurship ecosystem. Key words: higher education, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial spirit, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, quadruple helix of entrepreneurship education JEL codes: I 23, L 26, M 13
1. Introduction Global experience from the most developed economies and regions has revealed the important role of universities and other higher education institutions for successful economic expansion. They comprise a critical mass of highly educated resources who are, due to their expert knowledge, able to develop new technologies and implement novelties that represent the basis for the development of new entrepreneurial ideas. Entrepreneurship education and training has become the key tool for achieving higher and, above all, quality entrepreneurial activity. This
15
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
includes not only the higher education level, but also the entire education process of any individual (including lifelong learning). Creativity and entrepreneurship have always been the motivations behind development. Entrepreneurship has become one of the most important factors for economic development, due to the creation of new enterprises and employment as well as the creation of jobs within existing companies (Wennekers and Thurik, 1999; Carree and Thurik, 2003; Rasmussena and Sørheim, 2006). The transformation of contemporary societies into knowledge societies and the transition of economic systems from managerial into entrepreneurial systems (Audretsch and Thurik, 2007) have brought to the forefront creative and entrepreneurial individuals who are willing and able to discover better ways of doing business, find business opportunities, and contribute toward a better long-term quality of life. Entrepreneurship is a complicated and multi-layered phenomenon in which entrepreneurs have to play a number of different roles. The role of an innovator is the key role. The notion of entrepreneur as an innovator has been attributed to Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1934), who put the entrepreneur at the core of economic development. Economic development is a dynamic process in which entrepreneurs represent the driving force. No economic development can exist without entrepreneurs and no development can exist without entrepreneurship’s ability to start something new. The definition of an enterprise as a vehicle for new combinations in forms of production, stresses the importance of certain special human characteristics – namely, the ability to think, create, and innovate. Entrepreneurs are thus needed for the existence of companies. In order for the company to grow, flourish, and develop, entrepreneurs need to constantly rearrange the available resources. To a large extent the survival of enterprises depends on the innovative abilities of entrepreneurs. Economic systems (as well as social systems) require entrepreneurs who can find new combinations of production factors, leading to new products and services that will satisfy the constantly changing needs of buyers. Under the guidance of entrepreneurs, the process of “creative destruction” is born, during which existing technologies, production processes, and organisational principles, as well as old products and services, cease to exist and are substituted with new products and services. Under the influence of those advertising campaigns run by large companies, we too often forget that the majority of enterprises worldwide belong to the group of small- and medium-sized enterprises. According to official data there are 20 million enterprises in the European Union, of which only 43,000 belong to the so-called large enterprises group. The rest (99.8 per cent) are small- and medium-sized enterprises, which provide more than two thirds of jobs in the private sector – almost 90 million jobs (EC, 2010, p. 15). In Slovenia, small and medium-sized enterprises represent 99.8 per cent of all enterprises and provide two thirds of jobs (Širec and Rebernik, 2009). In other words, out of 111,201 active enterprises in Slovenia in 2007 only 271 had more than 250 employees, while 1,294 had between 50 and 250 employees. All other enterprises were smaller, with the majority employing fewer than 10 people. It is important to be aware of this fact when talking about creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. 16
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
Small enterprises are not small variations of large enterprises. Individual management functions in small enterprises cannot be specialised to the same extent as in large enterprises. Educational processes in higher education institutions have not taken this feature into account, as they focus primarily on large enterprises by teaching expertise in separate fields (i.e., marketing, finance, accounting). On the other hand, small enterprises cannot afford narrowly specialised individuals. They need highly competent and practice-oriented individuals who are capable of coping with a wide range of business problems. Despite the fact that small and medium-sized enterprises represent an important part of national economies worldwide their needs are not catered for at the majority of business and management schools in an appropriate manner, by which curricula would be adapted to satisfy their needs. The rapidly changing business environment characterised by an extended role for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the globalisation of business activities, intensified information flows, and growing uncertainty have increased the value of the human capital engaged in business studies, and highlighted the fact that the traditional education for future entrepreneurs and managers in SMEs has become unproductive. Consequently, we need an education that will promote creative entrepreneurship, enable future graduates to perform successfully in rapidly changing environments, as well as give them the skills to recognise business opportunities and set up and manage their own enterprises. This chapter deals, firstly, with the influence and role of entrepreneurship education for economic development as well as the key factors influencing entrepreneurial activities. Secondly, Slovenian entrepreneurship education will be placed in the context of global entrepreneurship education as revealed through data from worldwide research activity at the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. We shall present the findings regarding student entrepreneurial intentions identified in research carried out at universities in 11 countries (Australia, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates, and the South African Republic). Thirdly, a case study of good practice in entrepreneurship education at the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Maribor will be presented. Finally, we will present a model of the quadruple helix of entrepreneurship education, formed by the students, professors, entrepreneurs, and representatives from the wider entrepreneurial ecosystem. At the end, we will offer a number of proposals for efficient entrepreneurship education.
2. Entrepreneurship education and economic development In its last report, the Global Education Initiative (GEI) at the World Economic Forum (WEF, 2009) stated that “education is one of the most important foundations for economic development, entrepreneurship is a major driver of innovation and economic growth”, and emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurship education which is “critical for the development of entrepreneurial skills, attitudes and behaviours, which are the basis of economic growth”. The largest study of
17
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
entrepreneurship, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, in which Slovenia has participated since 2002, has demonstrated that entrepreneurship education is inadequate at all levels of education as it does not encourage creativity, self-sufficiency, or personal initiative. In addition, it does not pay adequate attention to entrepreneurship and new firm creation, nor does it provide adequate instruction in market economic principles (Rebernik et al., 2008). The results of the analysis by the European Commission reveal the worrying scope of entrepreneurship educa-tion. The research results show that more than half of European students in higher education do not have access to an entrepreneurship education. As such, approxi-mately 11 million students are deprived of this type of learning activity and/or additional learning activities that would otherwise encourage their entrepreneurial activity (EC, 2008). The majority of university programmes still educate students in order to be able to find an employer. The students’ responsibility is transferred to someone else – usually to the employer in the private or public sector. In relation to training future owners and entrepreneurs for self-employment, preparing them to take control of their own professional careers, university programmes in Slovenia have been totally unsuccessful. In the majority of business education programmes (not only in Slovenia), students start building their entrepreneurial careers only after they have graduated and gained initial experience in running a company. What would happen if students in other fields of study were trained in the same manner? Most probably there would be drivers who had never driven a car, doctors who had never treated a patient, architects who had never designed a building, and painters who had never painted a picture (Rebernik, 2002). Undoubtedly, students interested in entrepreneurial careers have to develop a number of skills to help them manage and control their companies (e.g., strategic and operational planning, risk management, market analysis, problem solving, and creativity). A successful start-up demands the mastery and integration of skills that differ from the skills needed to run an existing business. Higher education programmes have certain limitations, but play an important role in educating students on the challenges of entrepreneurial activities as well as in developing skills and self-esteem (Henderson and Robertson, 2000). Of course, it is not necessary for an entrepreneurship education to always lead to the establishment of one’s own business. It is equally important that students acquire additional skills and characteristics that can be useful and necessary in other forms of professional activity; ranging from perceiving opportunities, networking and cooperation, to a healthy ambition and an awareness of self-responsibility. Entrepreneurship is a learning process. This means that entrepreneurs are not born, but made through the skills and experiences acquired through the influence of their teachers, parents, mentors and role models, and developed throughout the process of personal growth (Volery, 2004). Perhaps individuals interested in entrepreneurship, as well as existing entrepreneurs, cannot be taught to become entrepreneurs, but they can certainly be encouraged in it instead of being discouraged from this type of activity. We need to take into account Krueger’s 18
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
(2000) findings that entrepreneurial intentions do not arise spontaneously. They are created even if it seems that they are spontaneous. Entrepreneurial intentions are of key importance for understanding the entire entrepreneurial process because they are a prerequisite for entrepreneurial activity. Entrepreneurial intentions are focused on setting up new businesses or the creation of new value within an existing company (Bird, 1988). Thus, entrepreneurial activity can be influenced by providing the conditions for the development of its key elements, which consequently contribute towards the economic growth and competitiveness of whole national industries. Figure 1 shows the relationship between entrepreneurial education and economic development. Under the influence of social, cultural and political contexts, two basic mechanisms of economic growth operate; defined by two frameworks of general economic conditions and entrepreneurial conditions in a national economy. Entrepreneurial education provides support for both frameworks. A favourable education system towards entrepreneurial education represents the basis through which key elements of entrepreneurship are formed. An individual’s skills, abilities, and relationship with entrepreneurship influence the recognition of both their abilities as well as the business opportunities in their environment. These are reflected through entrepreneurial intentions, which are realised through the entrepreneurial activities of individuals and consequently influence economic growth and the development of the national economy. The extensive literature on entrepreneurship hints at the existence of interest to identify factors leading individuals towards choosing an entrepreneurial career (Martínez et al., 2007). The majority of contributions deal with similar factors; most often analysing individuals’ age, sex, professional background, work experi-
Fig. 1. The influence of education on entrepreneurship and economic development Source: Adapted from GEM, Bosma et al., 2008, Teixeira and Davey, 2009.
19
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
ence, education, and psychological profile (Delmar and Davidsson, 2000; Širec, 2007). In the broadest context, three factors have been chosen to measure entrepreneurial aspirations: demographic data, personality traits (Robinson, 1987), and content factors (Naffziger et al., 1994). Demographic data (e.g., sex and age) can be used to describe entrepreneurs, but the majority of these characteristics do not increase the ability to predict whether a person is likely to set up an enterprise (Hatten and Ruhland, 1995). The second way to assess entrepreneurial aspirations is the study of personality traits, such as risk taking, creativity, and the need for achievement (Teixeira, 2008; Širec, 2007). It must be emphasised that the majority of authors (e.g., Naffziger et al., 1994) claim that the decision to pursue entrepreneurial activity depends on much more than just personality traits and individual differences. Ultimately, in order to reach a critical assessment of individual entrepreneurial potential, we need to study the interaction among personality traits (relationship towards risks, creativity, and the need for achievement), other important content factors of perception (work/professional experience, the influence of religion and role models), knowledge of entrepreneurship (entrepreneurial experience, knowledge, awareness and interest), formal education (years of education, level of education, type of higher education institution), and the type of research programme/area.
3. Critical assessment of entrepreneurship education and training in Slovenia Some insights into entrepreneurship education and training in Slovenia can be gleaned from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), the major research project aimed at describing and analysing entrepreneurial processes within a wide range of countries. GEM is conducted by the international consortium Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA); it was launched in 1999 with 10 participating countries. Since then, it has expanded significantly to include 54 countries in 2010. Slovenia has been part of the project since 2002. GEM’s contribution to the knowledge and understanding of the entrepreneurial process is unique as it is the only existing data set that can provide consistent crosscountry comparisons and information on entrepreneurial activity. As such, the importance of its findings is invaluable for policy makers as well as academics. GEM focuses in particular on the level of involvement in the early-stages of a country’s entrepreneurial activity. Since its establishment, GEM has collected data annually through surveys of adult populations; these surveys are conducted in each participating country, based on a sample of at least 2000 adults. A separate survey is conducted with national experts to examine different entrepreneurship frameworks that influence the quantity and quality of entrepreneurial activity in each participating country. Experts in each participating country are carefully selected from among successful entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, bankers, policy makers, advisors and academics, always taking note of the regional and gender representation. They evaluate their country 20
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
according to 16 important national entrepreneurship frameworks (finance, government policies, governmental programs, education and training, R&D transfer, commercial and services infrastructure, market openness, physical infrastructure, cultural and social norms, opportunities for start up, abilities and knowledge for start up, entrepreneur social image, intellectual property rights, women’s support for start up, attention to high growth, and interest in innovation) that influence entrepreneurial intentions and the setting up of a business. A detailed description of the methodology behind the collection of GEM data is provided in Reynolds et al. (2005). In 2010 in Slovenia, 3021 adults were interviewed in the adult population survey and 54 experts in the national expert survey. According to the national expert survey, entrepreneurship education is considered to be a very important entrepreneurship framework. The expert evaluation is based on the agreement or disagreement with each of the following six statements on a scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”): –– Teaching in primary and secondary education encourages creativity, self-sufficiency, and personal initiative; –– Teaching in primary and secondary education provides adequate instruction in market economic principles; –– Teaching in primary and secondary education pays adequate attention to both entrepreneurship and new firm creation; –– Colleges and universities provide a good and adequate preparation for starting up and growing new firms; –– The level of business and management education provides a good and adequate preparation for starting up and growing new firms;
Fig. 2. Average ratings of in-school entrepreneurship education Source: Coduras et al., 2010.
21
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
–– The vocational, professional, and continuing education systems provide a good and adequate preparation for starting up and growing new firms. Each year the experts are very critical of the quality of the entrepreneurship education framework. Figure 2 shows national experts’ average ratings on the state of in-school entrepreneurship education in a selected sample of GEM nations for the years 2005–2008 (Coduras et al., 2010). Each year the experts are very critical of the quality of the entrepreneurship educational framework. Figure 2 shows the national experts average ratings on the state of in-school entrepreneurship education in a selected sample of GEM nations for the years 2005–2008 (Coduras et al., 2010). As Figure 2 indicates, among the countries with available data for the period analysed, entrepreneurship education has been extremely critically evaluated in Slovenia. On a scale from 1 to 5, it was rated at less than 2.5. Slovenia is not an exception; national experts in other countries were also extremely critical of formal entrepreneurship education. In all the countries surveyed, evaluations were low and relatively stable throughout the observed four-year period. In the United States and Spain, the national experts ratings of entrepreneurship education grew increasingly negative year on year. Thus, formal entrepreneurship education in the surveyed countries is clearly not satisfying national experts. Experts rate non-school training for entrepreneurship education higher. The same holds true for Slovenia, but even this type of education was rated lower than 3 on a scale from 1 to 5 (see Figure 3). A comparison between in-school entrepreneurship education and non-school entrepreneurship education shows that the latter is ranked slightly higher in
Fig. 3. Average ratings of non-school entrepreneurship education Source: Coduras et al., 2010.
22
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
many countries. This represents a severe criticism of the existing entrepreneurship education in the formal education system, which obviously has not managed to adapt well to changes in the economic structures where small- and mediumsized enterprises prevail and where the need for entrepreneurial activity constantly increases. Among the different subjects taught in entrepreneurship education and training, the most important seem to be those that enable students to set up their own companies and recognise a business opportunity. Table 1 shows the proportion of the adult population aged between 18 and 64 who participated in entrepreneurship education and training in 2008 in order to set up a company (Coduras et al., 2010). Countries within those groups are classified according to Porter’s classification of countries in the Global Competitiveness Report as factor-driven, efficiency-driven, and innovation-driven economic groups. In innovation-driven countries, Slovenia ranks extremely high, as more than one third of the working-age population has experienced some sort of entrepreneurship start-up education. In this group of countries, Finland takes the lead with 48.6%. In Slovenia, the percentage of people who have participated in entrepreneurship education and training at various points in their lives by age has been harmonised with the average level of entrepreneurial activity. The majority of people between 25 and 34 years old are engaged in early-stage entrepreneurship, which is similar to entrepreneurship education after finishing formal schooling. In the 25–34 year old age group, on average, 29.74% have participated in this type of education, with the percentage decreasing with age (Rebernik et al., 2009). In Slovenia, on average, 23.92% of men and 21.26% of women have participated in entrepreneurship education and training. In absolute terms, the difference is not huge, despite the fact that men in Slovenia indicate more self-confidence than women with regard to self-perception of start-up skills. On average, 60.83% of men and only 40.11% of women have a high self-perception of their start-up skills (Rebernik et al., 2009). Figure 4 shows the proportion of the population in Slovenia between 18 and 64 years of age who participated in entrepreneurship education and training after finishing formal schooling with respect to their education provider. People tend to choose from among different entrepreneurship education providers; with various forms of informal and online education prevailing both in Slovenia and abroad. In Slovenia, self-study rates are above average (compared to other countries with innovation-driven economies); this includes informal education about setting up and starting a business (e.g., reading entrepreneurial books during one’s free time, observation of other entrepreneurs, or offering to help out in a company founded by someone else). In Slovenia, 15.51% of respondents acquired the knowledge and experience to set up their own businesses in this way; Finland led the group, with 30%, while the average percentage in this group of countries amounted to 11% (Rebernik et al., 2009). People are aware of the importance of entrepreneurship education and training in Slovenia as they often pursue such an education, especially in the form
23
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec Table 1. Prevalence of start-up training (in-school and non-school) by country and economic group (percentage of working-age population)
Country
Factor-Driven Egypt India Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Ecuador Colombia Group Average Efficiency-Driven Turkey Serbia Dominican Republic Brazil Romania South Africa Argentina Mexico Uruguay Macedonia Peru Latvia Iran Jamaica Hungary Croatia Chile Group Average Innovation-Driven Japan Israel Republic of Korea Greece United Kingdom Denmark France Italy Iceland Germany Spain Ireland Finland Slovenia Belgium Group Average
Only in-school training
Both in-school and nonschool training
Any inschool training
Any nonschool training
Total
A
B
C
A+B
B+C
A+B+C
3.4 2.6 1.5 9.6 11.9 10.7 6.6
1.4 3.5 9.1 4.0 8.4 12.6 6.5
2.8 7.4 8.5 6.4 6.9 16.8 8.1
4.8 6.1 10.6 13.6 20.3 23.3 13.1
4.2 10.9 17.6 10.4 15.3 29.4 14.6
7.6 13.4 19.1 20.0 27.2 40.1 21.2
2.1 2.6 0.6 3.0 3.8 5.0 6.5 6.9 5.8 8.3 6.0 9.2 9.9 11.7 14.5 2.8 10.3 6.4
0.4 0.4 4.7 2.4 2.2 4.4 3.3 3.6 4.9 4.3 8.4 5.6 5.7 4.4 2.7 17.3 15.0 5.3
3.8 7.2 2.5 4.1 2.8 4.5 7.6 5.7 13.4 6.5 15.2 13.5 13.5 5.0 7.4 8.0 17.3 8.1
2.5 3.0 5.3 5.3 5.9 9.4 9.9 10.5 10.7 12.6 14.4 14.9 15.6 16.0 17.1 20.1 25.3 11.7
4.2 7.6 7.2 6.4 4.9 8.9 11.0 9.3 18.3 10.8 23.6 19.1 19.1 9.3 10.0 25.3 32.3 13.4
6.3 10.2 7.8 9.4 8.7 13.9 17.5 16.2 24.1 19.1 29.6 28.4 29.1 21.0 24.5 28.1 42.6 19.8
1.7 4.4 4.6 4.2 5.6 6.7 5.7 3.5 9.1 8.0 7.4 8.7 8.3 13.4 16.3 7.2
3.2 1.6 1.4 1.9 2.5 3.3 4.4 6.7 2.7 4.4 5.1 5.4 10.4 11.1 8.8 4.9
12.5 6.9 7.6 10.9 10.3 12.6 8.0 6.3 15.0 8.8 9.4 12.1 29.8 11.3 8.6 11.3
4.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 8.1 10.0 10.1 10.2 11.8 12.4 12.6 14.0 18.8 24.5 25.0 12.0
15.7 8.4 9.0 12.8 12.8 15.9 12.4 13.0 17.7 13.2 14.6 17.4 40.3 22.4 17.3 16.2
17.4 12.8 13.6 17.0 18.4 22.6 18.1 16.5 26.8 21.2 22.0 26.1 48.6 35.8 33.6 23.4
Source: GEM adult population survey, 2008.
24
Only nonschool training
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
Fig. 4. Types of entrepreneurship education after finishing formal schooling Source: GEM Slovenia, 2008.
of self-study. What about university students? Information related to university students’ entrepreneurship education and training is taken from international research carried out at universities in 11 countries (detailed in the following section). The international scope of this area of research is important not only because of the comparative aspect of such an approach to entrepreneurship education, but also because of the comparison of values, motives, and intentions of students involved in entrepreneurial activities. The international perspective can be an important comparative mechanism for sharing best practices and providing recommendations for the improvement of entrepreneurship education in individual countries.
4. Entrepreneurial intentions of Slovenian students Despite the fact that higher education institutions play an important role in the creation of “entrepreneurship capacity” (Teixeira and Davey, 2009), few empirical studies deal with entrepreneurship attitudes of students as potential future entrepreneurs (Wang and Wong, 2004). Students’ willingness to start a new venture in the future mostly depends on their attitudes and knowledge of entrepreneurship. Numerous studies deal with attitudes towards entrepreneurship (Greenberger and Sexton, 1988; Learned, 1992; Naffziger et al., 1994; Brandstätter, 1997), but only a few have dealt with the entrepreneurial intentions of students. Existing studies are mainly focused on the United States and Great Britain and have included only small samples of students in entrepreneurship programmes. Thus, we decided to investigate the results of an international research study dealing with the entrepreneurship intentions of students from Slovenia studying at the Faculty of Business and
25
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
Economics at the University of Maribor. This empirical research study was carried out together with partner universities in 2009. The study includes a wide spectrum of intentions for setting up a business by students who have just embarked upon a university business education. The majority of studies dealing with student intentions for starting a business have focused on students of business studies (e.g. Hills and Barnaby, 1977; Sexton and Bowman, 1983; Hills and Welsch, 1986; Ede et al., 1998; Sagie and Elizur, 1999; Krueger et al., 2000; Lissy, 2000; DeMartino and Barbato, 2002), which makes sense given that it is difficult to find entrepreneurship in other study programmes. Our contribution is a detailed description of a part of the research results that can help in the formation of arguments for different teaching methods in order to promote such entrepreneurship education; and that will thus contribute towards such business ventures being started so as to provide jobs as well as boost growth and competitiveness in global markets. We focus on three questions: –– Which entrepreneurship competences do students (think they) have? –– Which factors influence students’ decisions to become entrepreneurs or employees? –– How do students perceive the role of universities in encouraging their interest in entrepreneurship? Table 2 shows the number of respondents by country and average age; 10.3% of the sample are Slovenian students. The Slovenian part of the research was carried out during lectures for firstand second-year students attending a Bologna university study programme at the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Maribor. Despite the fact that the research was carried out during lectures, student participation was voluntary. Answers were collected through written questionnaires handed out to undergraduate students, most often during lectures given to first-year students. We received answers from 148 students (27.4% men, 71.6% women). In the international sample, the share of men was 44.5% compared to 55.5% women. In Table 2. Number of respondents by country Country Australia Portugal Finland Germany Slovenia Poland Great Britain Ireland United Arab Emirates South African Republic Uganda Total
26
N
%
Average age
65 224 92 126 148 51 54 184 118 276 96 1434
4.5 15.6 6.4 8.8 10.3 3.6 3.8 12.8 8.2 19.2 6.7 100.0
20.0 18.9 21.2 22.4 21.4 20.3 21.3 18.6 19.3 20.0 20.1 20.2
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
Table 3. Relationship to starting a company Slovenia (%)
International (%)
No and I have no interest to do so
12.2
12.5
No, but I could imagine starting a company
47.3
50.2
No, but I have an idea that I believe could be successful
20.3
18.3
I am currently thinking about it
15.5
11.7
I have taken steps to start a business
2.0
4.2
Yes, I have founded ___company/ies
2.7
3.0
Total
100.0
100.0
Source: Author’s calculations.
both cases, more women participated than men. The data collected from all the participating countries were harmonised by the coordination team led by Todd Davey (2010). The team prepared an SPSS database, which represented the basis for the analysis to find answers to the questions set. Students were asked if they had already set up a business venture. Just over 12% of Slovenian respondents revealed no interest in setting up a business venture, which is similar to the results of the international sample. It is encouraging that 47.3% of Slovenian students indicated the possibility of starting a company in the future (international results: 50.2%). Table 4. Skills and competences for entrepreneurship Min
Max
N
Average
SD
Stand. error
Rank
Slo
1
5
147
2.98
0.848
0.070
4
Int.
1
5
1263
3.15
0.986
0.028
2
Slo
2
5
148
3.38
0.803
0.066
2
Int.
1
5
1263
3.27
0.960
0.027
1
I can create a business plan and a business concept
Slo.
1
5
148
3.40
1.042
0.086
1
Int.
1
5
1264
3.14
1.075
0.030
3
I know how to legally finance a new business concept
Slo
1
5
148
3.09
0.925
0.076
3
Int.
1
5
1259
2.89
1.099
0.031
4
I know techniques to find out what the market wants I understand the type of issues that confront an entrepreneur in taking an idea to market
Source: Author’s calculations. Note: Int. = International Based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) I agree completely to (5) I disagree completely.
27
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
This answer is closely connected to the possession of those key competences and abilities needed for entrepreneurship that were evaluated by the students (see Table 4). The results relating to student self-evaluations of personal abilities demonstrate considerable differences between Slovenian and international respondents. A statistically significant difference emerged among the answers of the two groups of students in three statements. Slovenian students believe they are capable of creating a business plan and developing a business concept, so they ranked this skill highest (rank 1) – statistically considerably higher than the international population of students (t(1410) = –2.770, p = 0.006). Interestingly, Slovenian students ranked the knowledge of techniques for finding out what the market wants lowest (and statistically, significantly lower than the international population) (t(1408) = 2.303, p = 0.022). The Slovenian students represent a contradictory situation in that they believe that they are able to create a business plan and a business concept despite the fact that they are not familiar with the techniques for finding out what the market wants. The essence of entrepreneurship activity lies in identifying business opportunities (i.e., determining what the market really needs). On the other hand, knowing how to finance a new business concept was ranked statistically considerably higher than the international students (t(1405) = –2.443, p = 0.015). According to the range of possible answers (from 1 to 5), the 3.21 average for Slovenian students is relatively low, albeit higher than among international students, where the average is 3.11. This obviously points to the fact that students entering the faculty had not acquired sufficient insights and knowledge about entrepreneurship.
Table 5. Psychological motivation factors for entrepreneurship Min
Max
N
Average
SD
Stand. error
Rank
Slo
2
5
147
4.36
0.721
0.059
1
Int.
1
5
1237
4.13
0.991
0.028
1
Slo
1
5
146
3.97
0.874
0.072
3
Int.
1
5
1228
3.71
1.081
0.031
3
Possibilities for selffulfilment
Slo.
2
5
146
4.14
0.752
0.062
2
Int.
1
5
1226
4.06
0.989
0.028
2
To avoid uncertainties related to employment (e.g., being unemployed)
Slo
1
5
146
3.21
0.870
0.072
4
Int.
1
5
1223
3.21
1.156
0.033
4
Personal independence / Managing own time More interesting work
Source: Author’s calculations. Note: Int. = International Based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) I agree completely to (5) I disagree completely.
28
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
A correlation analysis of variables reflecting the students’ skills and abilities as well as their relationship to establishing new companies showed a correlation between 0.2 and 0.5 (p = 0.01), indicating that students with a higher level of entrepreneurship skills expressed a more positive attitude towards starting a company. Similar results were found in international samples. Entrepreneurial theory deals with entrepreneurship intentions through the analysis of individuals’ personality traits (McClelland 1961; Kets de Vreis 1977). They can be divided into psychological (need for achievement, risk taking, personal independence, position of control, self-respect, self-fulfilment, vision) as well as non-psychological (human and social capital) and motivational factors (Širec and Močnik, 2010). In our research, we studied four characteristics of the psychological motivation factors for students, which helped us analyse the constituents of entrepreneurship intentions (see Table 5). In response to the question “Why do you prefer company ownership to being an employee?”, both Slovenian and international students ranked their personal independence highest. Such results were expected as an entrepreneurship role undoubtedly requires a high degree of independence. Entrepreneurs take responsibility for exploiting opportunities that did not exist before and are also responsible for achieving or failing to achieve results (Širec, 2007). Students ranked possibilities for self-fulfilment second. Interestingly, no differences in preferences emerged in regard to perceiving psychological motivation factors between Slovenian and international students. All the factors were ranked equally. This finding could also serve as an argument in support of an entrepreneurship education that
Fig. 5. Selecting future career: being an employee or having your own company (in %) Source: Author’s calculations.
29
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
would have a greater influence on the non-psychological motivation factors, as the results show that psychological factors reflect a higher degree of homogeneity and are not easily influenced. With the next question, shown in Figure 5, we sought to obtain students’ evaluations of their previous careers. A large slice of students graduating from Slovenian business schools still believe that the best career for them would be employment in the public sector. Students were asked to evaluate on a scale from 1 to 5 whether they would prefer to become an employee (1) or have their own business (5). The average value of answers provided by Slovenian students was 3.4, which is 0.1 higher than the international average and reflects the students’ tendency towards a willingness to accept responsibility for their futures. Table 6. How can universities contribute towards a rise in student entrepreneurial orientation? Min
Max
N
Average
SD
Stand. error
Slo
2
5
147
3.46
0.813
0.067
Int.
1
5
1220
3.68
1.027
0.029
Slo
1
5
147
3.67
0.995
0.082
Int.
1
5
1222
3.69
1.030
0.029
Offer a bachelor or master’s degree in entrepreneurship
Slo.
1
5
147
3.71
0.993
0.082
Int.
1
5
1211
3.55
1.081
0.031
Offer project work focussed on entrepreneurship
Slo
1
5
147
4.00
0.876
0.072
2
Int.
1
5
1216
3.71
1.022
0.029
3
Slo
1
5
147
3.68
0.965
0.080
Int.
1
5
1216
3.71
1.050
0.030
3
Slo
1
5
147
4.07
0.881
0.073
1
Int.
1
5
1221
3.91
1.006
0.029
1
Slo
1
5
62
3.68
1.004
0.128
Int.
1
5
512
3.68
1.088
0.048
Slo
1
5
146
3.68
1.089
0.090
Int.
1
5
1215
3.41
1.170
0.034
Slo
2
5
146
3.87
0.873
0.072
3
Int.
1
5
1211
3.78
0.988
0.028
2
Create more awareness of entrepreneurship as a possible career choice Provide students with ideas to start a new business
Arrange conferences or workshops on entrepreneurship Bring students in contact with the network needed to start a new business Allow companies run by students to use university services Provide students with the financial means needed to start a new business Bring entrepreneurial students in contact with each other
Rank
Source: Author’s calculations. Note: Int. = International Based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) I agree completely to (5) I disagree completely.
30
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
According to Redfort and Trigo (2007), entrepreneurship education can have three key roles in encouraging an “entrepreneurship society”. It can create a positive perception of entrepreneurship, making it a possible and attractive career choice for students. In addition, entrepreneurship education contributes towards the development of the knowledge and skills students need in order to develop technical-business skills for a successful entrepreneurial career. Finally, entrepreneurship education can play an important role in scientific development by contributing to research activities and raising awareness of entrepreneurship phenomena. The education system should help develop the concepts individuals require for making sound employment decisions. If students are deprived of the opportunity to acquire an awareness of the worthiness of an entrepreneurial career during their education, it is less likely that they will become involved in entrepreneurship. On the other hand, the education system cannot make up for the lack of a favourable environment for entrepreneurship. The environment in Slovenia still represents an obstacle for the development of entrepreneurship. The 2009 GEM (Rebernik et al., 2010) warns against obstacles hindering entrepreneurship, including a high degree of egalitarianism in society, a high degree of job protection, and a low percentage of highly educated entrepreneurs. We were also interested in students’ opinion about the role universities play in increasing the entrepreneurship orientation of students. Students evaluated statements on a scale from (1) I agree completely to (5) I disagree completely. The results are shown in Table 6. The results show a comparable perception between Slovenian and international students with regard to the role the education system plays in promoting students’ entrepreneurial orientation. Desirable activities that ranked highest are (1) bringing students in contact with networks required for the start-up, (2) offering entrepreneurially oriented project work, and (3) bringing students in contact with each other. Students also called for different education methods, with less lecturing and more team project work in real business environments. These are exactly the features of the programme presented in the next section.
5. Learning entrepreneurship in practice – examples of good practice Despite the fact that students in business and managerial study programmes are educated for a variety of jobs, all their competences are linked to a knowledge about doing business and managing companies. It can be said that students are rarely taught about the real life of companies. Entrepreneurship and scientific journals have always been full of contributions that empirically and/or theoretically deal with the problems of entrepreneurship education (e.g., Gorman et al., 1997). What is missing are practical educational attempts demonstrating the possibilities of implementing innovative ways to teach entrepreneurship by encouraging creativity and innovativeness within the framework of the present university education system.
31
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
The professional environment in which students may find themselves working involves not only an enterprise, but also a whole ecosystem in which smaller enterprises search for business opportunities and collect the necessary sources to implement current business activities. Therefore, education should creatively replicate such an environment and follow two objectives: build creative and entrepreneurial individuals and create efficient managers. Such an education system is referred to in our contribution as the quadruple helix of effective entrepreneurship education (Rebernik, 2009). Such an education consists of four groups of players: the students, academics, and entrepreneurs, plus the entrepreneurship ecosystem with its supporting infrastructure. The roles of these four players are complex and intertwined. Teaching, studying, researching, plus connecting companies and the entrepreneurial ecosystem (see Figure 6), are activities that should be effectively implemented in order to build a successful education system for future entrepreneurs and/or managers of small- and medium-sized enterprises. The programme comprises four inseparable components of entrepreneurship education (the students, professors, entrepreneurs, and supporting infrastructure of the entrepreneurship ecosystem), understood as the quadruple helix of
Fig. 6. Quadruple helix of entrepreneurship education and training
32
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
entrepreneurship education and training (Rebernik, 2009). This is summarised in Figure 6. The resultant philosophy of this innovative programme of entrepreneurship education is based on the assumption that the education and training of individuals who are likely to become independent entrepreneurs or employees in small enterprises should be considerably different from the education of those individuals who will find employment in large enterprises. This type of education should take into account at least three elements that distinguish small enterprises from large ones: de-specialisation of tasks, scarcity of resources, and self-employment. Such a programme was created in cooperation with four international universities and TEMPUS programme funds at the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Maribor during the first half of the 1990s. The programme has proved to be very successful for the last 17 years and represents a unique model in Slovenian education. The basic purpose of the programme is to educate students to be able to manage their own companies, manage small and medium-sized enterprises, or carry out other managerial tasks immediately after graduation; without having to spend too much time gaining business expertise and getting to know real business life. Graduates should be able to put their knowledge and skills into practice. Also, the education should be of a high academic level, focus on practicalities, and be centred on independent work and students’ professional careers. In addition to students acquiring appropriate know-how and leadership skills, with the aim of building a theoretical as well as a practical foundation, their training should focus on accepting responsibility for themselves and others. Students have to be able to manage existing companies as well as create new jobs. The programme is based on Revans’ ideas about active learning, which defines acquiring knowledge as “a process of inquiry, beginning with the experience of not knowing what to do next, and finding that an answer is not available from current expertise” (Powell et al., 1999). The programme was created so that each student, over a period of four semesters, spends four days each week at the faculty plus a day at a chosen mentor company. Entrepreneurs and managers in SMEs train students through their work and the students (with the help of their professors) solve real-life business problems. The programme tries to unite the higher education sphere and managers/entrepreneurs in order to solve common tasks in such a way that each student enrolled in the programme becomes involved in a small enterprise that is – by complying with certain criteria set in advance – capable of and willing to cooperate with the Faculty of Business and Economics in its entrepreneurship study programme. Under the mentorship of entrepreneurs or top managers of chosen companies, students check their theoretical knowledge against practical experiences gained in companies over a period of two years while simultaneously acquiring practical leadership skills. The entrepreneurship programme was created and is led by the Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management at the Faculty of Business and Economics. The institute’s main belief is that the main role of a university is its contribution towards the development of the region and society Thus, univer
33
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
sity teachers are not only to teach and do research, but also to collaborate in numerous other activities that may contribute towards economic development. Just as we speak about extracurricular activities and their importance for students’ development, it is necessary for university teachers to be engaged in numerous activities. Such engagement, which contributes to familiarising students with the importance and value of innovation and creativity, is reflected especially through the following activities: –– Conducting research for Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), which is the largest study of entrepreneurial activity among adults in more than 50 countries. GEM was initiated in 1997 with the aim of identifying factors influencing entrepreneurial activity and economic growth on a national level. The institute joined the project in 2002 and conducts research activities related to Slovenia (www.gemslovenia.org); –– Slovenian entrepreneurship observatory was established in 1998 in order to evaluate entrepreneurial activity of Slovenian enterprises on an annual basis. Databases created during each project are used for teaching purposes (e.g., Širec and Rebernik, 2009); –– Ad hoc research is conducted within the European network for social and economic research, a strong and effective network of institutes from 32 European countries. The institute participates in common research activities when contributions that highlight Slovenian entrepreneurship are needed (www.ensr.eu); –– STIQE conference. Since 1992, this international scientific conference focusing on the connection between systemic thinking, innovation, quality and entrepreneurship has been organised every other year to find holistic answers through multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches (e.g., Mulej et al., 2006); –– PODIM conference. This conference represents one of the most important events in the field of innovation and entrepreneurship in the region, attracting more than 300 entrepreneurs, university teachers, managers, researchers, and professionals from the entrepreneurial support environment and politics each year (www.podim.org); –– Slovenian Start-up of the Year, established in 2007, seeks to foster awareness about important innovative enterprises with large growth potential. The annual prestigious award recognises aspirations during the first phase of entrepreneurial activity, which requires both informal and formal investors and business partners. The selection of a start-up enterprise of the year is based on an evaluation of the business plan and a presentation to the evaluation board (www.startup.si); –– Business incubator Tovarna podjemov plays the traditional role of university incubator and ensures support for students and researchers who wish to set up their own enterprises (www.tovarnapodjemov.org). Students participate in the above-mentioned activities in various ways. For example, they may use databases with research results when writing their seminar and diploma papers, participate in conferences, use tools and information 34
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
provided by the business incubator, visit companies and institutions in the entrepreneurship support environment, discuss real-life problems, and get acquainted with successful Slovenian entrepreneurs. The study programme has an Internet site (www.podjeten.si) and publishes a magazine in which professors and students publish articles and share their experiences. In the 17 years during which the entrepreneurship study programme has been offered at the University of Maribor, a number of relationships have been established between entrepreneurs and owners/managers of small- and mediumsized enterprises. Students have completed more than 500 projects in mentoring companies. Many entrepreneurs and managers have participated in discussions during in-class activities. With the money provided by enterprises and the money earned by students through their business activities, numerous study trips at home and abroad have been organised. Two years ago, a programme analysis was carried out; and the results were extremely encouraging. The majority of alumni found their first employment immediately after graduation, with one fifth starting work in mentoring companies. If the graduates had to select a study programme again, 90% of them would choose the entrepreneurship programme. Within 5 years of graduation 20% of graduates had set up their own companies, and 40% of them believed that they would do so within the next four years (Širec, 2008). This is a surprising result considering that the TEA index of GEM, which measures early entrepreneurial activity of adults in Slovenia, amounted to only 5.4% in 2009, while all entrepreneurial activity in Slovenia in 2009 amounted to around 10%. One of the positive results from the implementation of the entrepreneurship programme is an acknowledgment of the need for entrepreneurship education by university teachers, entrepreneurs and managers of SMEs. During the early years in the establishment of cooperation between small enterprises and the university, we noted two interesting opinions. On the one hand, the majority of entrepreneurs and managers of SMEs believed that – from a practical point of view – cooperation with the university was a waste of time. On the other hand, there was a strongly held belief at the university that practical activities do not belong at the university because they are not scientific in nature. The implementation of the entrepreneurship programme did away with many of these false impressions of reality. We soon noticed changes in thinking and shifts in the mental framework of university teachers, entrepreneurs, and managers (Rebernik, 1994). Today’s teachers work closely with business partners and have deeper insights into business problems and the learning requirements of SMEs. It has also been proved that not every student meets the requirements of combining study with managerial practice, no matter how bright or hardworking he or she may be. In addition to satisfying formal requirements such as high grades or language skills, an appropriate personality as well as ingenuity, along with communication and cooperation skills, are needed to ensure that both student and company will benefit from their cooperation. We should keep in mind that successful cooperation requires the careful selection of mentoring company and entrepreneur/manager. It is all about a quality
35
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
partnership relationship. Without a common commitment and a willingness to collaborate in the education programme and student training, even a well-organised and well-managed programme is likely to become just another ordinary university programme. The commitment of entrepreneurs and company managers to entrepreneurship students in mentoring companies plays the same role as laboratories for chemistry students and flight stimulators for future pilots. The main finding stemming from the 17 years of experience in implementing the programme is that the sustainable success of entrepreneurship education at the university level requires productive collaboration of all four equally important partner groups: the students, university teachers, entrepreneurs, and supporting infrastructure of the entrepreneurship ecosystem. They all have to possess certain qualities or there will be no successful education.
6. Conclusions Despite numerous research findings about the importance of influencing the formation of individuals’ interest in participating in entrepreneurial activities, entrepreneurship education is still poorly developed at all levels of education. It does not encourage creativity, independence, or personal initiative enough, nor does it focus sufficient attention on entrepreneurship and the setting up of new businesses. As such, it is unlikely that students will appreciate the principles of a market economy. The scope of entrepreneurship education is worrisome as more than half of European students in higher education have no access to entrepreneurship education; approximately 11 million students are deprived of this and/or additional learning activities that could encourage their entrepreneurial orientation (EC, 2008). The majority of university programmes continue to train students in such a way that they wait to find an employer. Students do not accept the potential role of self-employment or the possibility of finding and exploiting business opportunities that would enable them to offer employment to others. Experts who assess individual entrepreneurial frameworks within the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor are extremely critical of entrepreneurship education, especially formal education; rating it under 2.5 on a 5-point scale. Similarly critical of entrepreneurship education are the national experts in individual countries. In all the countries surveyed their rates were low and relatively stable throughout the observed period. It has become rather obvious that the experts are not satisfied with formal education in the countries surveyed. In Slovenia, the percentage of people who have attended entrepreneurship education and training is relatively favourable. More than a third of adults have participated in some form of entrepreneurship education about start-ups, with forms of self-education – namely, informal education related to setting up or starting a new business (e.g., studying the literature in their free time, observing other entrepreneurs, or offering help in conducting business activities in enterprises founded by someone else) – ranking above average compared to other participating countries in the group of innovative economies. In Slovenia, 15.51% of respondents acquired the knowledge and experience to set up their own company 36
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
in this way, with Finland taking the lead with 30%, while the average in this group was 11%. What is missing is a more intensive entrepreneurship education at the university level, as Slovenian and international students possessing a higher level of entrepreneurial skills both demonstrate a more positive attitude towards setting up their own companies. In addition, both groups of students share a similar perception regarding the role the education system should play in encouraging students’ entrepreneurial orientation. Desirable activities that ranked highest are (1) bringing students in contact with the networks required for a start-up, (2) offering entrepreneurially oriented project work, and (3) bringing students in contact with each other. These activities call for different educational methods, with less lecturing and more team project work in a real business environment. These are exactly the features of the study programme presented in the second part of this contribution. During the 17 years it has been running, the programme has proved to be an efficient and relatively successful method of preparing students for a potential entrepreneurship career. The time students spend in mentoring companies seems especially important. Such an educational model cannot be successful if all four key partners are not included in the process – namely the students, university teachers, entrepreneurs, and representatives of the entrepreneurship ecosystem. Above all, these partners have to possess certain qualities in addition to their willingness to cooperate. University teachers have to be able to act as consultants to companies if necessary and should possess appropriate mentoring abilities for students. It is also desirable that they be engaged in business activities and have international experience. However, not every student meets the requirements for combining study with managerial practice, no matter how bright or hardworking he or she may be. In addition to satisfying formal requirements such as high grades or language skills, an appropriate personality, ingenuity, as well as communication and cooperation skills are also needed to ensure that both student and company will benefit from their cooperation. Entrepreneurs, managers and companies have to be carefully selected. Managers are the partners who really make a difference. Without their commitment to cooperating with the university and participating in the educational and training process, the management programme – no matter how well organised – would be just an ordinary university programme, “just another brick in the wall”. With the commitment of entrepreneurs and managers, the companies start to play a similar role for students in small business management and entrepreneurship as laboratories play for chemistry students or flight simulators for future pilots. It is extremely important that the representatives of the entrepreneurship ecosystem with which companies do business – banks, venture capitalists, advisors, promotional agencies, and similar institutions – participate in the programme. Improving entrepreneurship education at universities requires several steps. First, this type of education needs to be expanded to technical faculties. Students attending technical faculties throughout Europe, as well as in Slovenia, lack information about entrepreneurship because there are no compulsory or optional
37
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec
entrepreneurship subjects offered. Universities should become more responsible for the development of regions and economies; as through this role they will become aware of the fact that the creation of knowledge is not enough if this knowledge is not transferred into useful products and services. Not all students can be taught entrepreneurship as it is a scarce resource with only some individuals possessing the right qualities for entrepreneurship. However, it is the role of the university to demonstrate the importance of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Above all, universities should be responsible for showing students that a decision for entrepreneurship represents a career decision. Policy makers should create the appropriate conditions for entrepreneurship so that young individuals who possess the necessary characteristics and orientations, when deciding if they should set up their own company or try to find an employer, can recognise an entrepreneurial career as a sound and attractive possibility.
References Audretsch D., Thurik R., 2007. The models of the managed and entrepreneurial economies. In: H. Hanusch, A. Pyka (eds.), Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Bird B., 1988. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intentions. Academy of Management Review 13: 442–554. Bosma N., Jones K., Autio E., Levie J., 2008. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2007 Executive Report. Babson College and London Business School. Bosma N., Acs Z.J., Autio E., Coduras A., Levie J., 2009. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2008 Executive Report. Babson College and London Business School. Brandstätter H., 1997. Becoming an entrepreneur – a question of personality structure? Journal of Economic Psychology 18: 157–177. Carree M.A., Thurik A.R., 2003. The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. In: Z.J. Acs, D.B. Audretsch (eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 437–471. Coduras A., Levie J., Kelley D., Saemundsson R., Schott T., 2010. GEM Special Report: A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship and Training. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, London. Delmar F., Davidsson P., 2000. Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 12: 1–23. DeMartino R., Barbato R., 2002. An Analysis of the Motivational Factors of Intending Entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Strategy 13: 26–36. EC – European Commission, 2006. Report on the implementation of the entrepreneurship action plan. Commission Staff Working Paper, Brussels. EC – European Commission, 2008. Survey of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/support_ measures/training_education/highedsurvey_en.pdf.
38
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
EC – European Commission, 2010. European SMEs under Pressure: Annual Report on EU Small andMedium-sized Entreprises 2009. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/ sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/index_en.htm (15. 6. 2010). Ede F.O., Panigrahi B., Calcich S.E., 1998. African American students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Journal of Education for Business 73, 5: 291–96. Gorman G., Hanlon D., King W., 1997. Some Research Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education, Enterprise Education and Education for Small Business Management: A Ten-year Literature Review. International Small Business Journal 15, 3: 56–77. Greenberger D.B., Sexton D.L., 1988. An interactive model of new venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management 26, 3: 1–7. Hatten T.S., Ruhland S.K., 1995. Student attitude toward entrepreneurship as affected by participation in an SBI program. Journal of Education for Business 70, 4: 224–227. Henderson R., Robertson M., 1999. Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career. Education & Training 41: 236–245. Hills G.E., Barnaby D.J., 1977. Future entrepreneurs from the business schools: Innovation is not dead. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Council for Small Business. International Council for Small Business, pp. 27–30. Hills G.E., Welsch H., 1986. Entrepreneurship behavioral intentions and student independence, characteristics and experiences. In: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference. Babson College, Babson Park, MA, pp. 173–186. Kets de Vreis M.F.R., 1977. The Entrepreneurial Personality at the Crossroads. Journal of Management Studies 14: 34–57. Krueger Jr N.F., 2000. The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24, 3: 5–24. Krueger N., Reilly M., Carsrud A., 2000. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing 15: 411–432. Learned K.E., 1992. What happened before the organization? A model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice: 17, 1, 39–48. Lissy D., 2000. Goodbye b-school. Harvard Business Review 78, 2: 16–17. Martínez D., Mora J.-G., Vila L.E., 2007. Entrepreneurs, the Self-employed and Employees amongst Young European Higher Education Graduates. European Journal of Education 42, 1: 92–117. McClelland D.C., 1961. The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand, NY Princeton. Mulej M., Rebernik M., Krošlin M. (eds.), 2008. Proceedings of the International Conference on Linking Systems Thinking, Innovation, Quality, Entrepreneurship and Environment. Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor. Naffziger D.W., Hornsby J.S., Kurtako D.F., 1994. A proposed research model of entrepreneurial motivation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18, 3: 29–42. Powell J. et al., 1999. Action Learning for Innovation and Construction. Problems of Participation and Connection Conference, Amsterdam, April 6–9. Rasmussena E., Sørheim R., 2006. Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation 26: 185–194. Rebernik M., Tominc P., Pušnik K., 2008. Premalo razvojno usmerjenih podjetij: GEM Slovenija
39
Miroslav Rebernik, Karin Širec 2007 (Lack of Growth oriented firms: GEM Slovenia 2007). University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor. Rebernik M., 2002. Business economics and entrepreneurship at the crossroads. Ekonomický casopis 50, 3: 471–488. Rebernik M., Tominc P., Pušnik K., 2009. Rast podjetniške aktivnosti v Sloveniji: GEM Slovenija 2008 (The Growth of Entrepreneurial acitivity in Slovenia: GEM Slovenia 2008). University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor. Rebernik M., Tominc P., Pušnik K., 2010. Slovensko podjetništvo v letu krize: GEM Slovenija 2008 (Slovenian Entrepreneurship in the Year of Crisis: GEM Slovenia 2009). University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor. Rebernik M., 2009. Quadruple helix of entrepreneurship and management education. Review of International Comparative Management 10, 5: 910–921. Redford D., Trigo V., 2007. The State of Portuguese Entrepreneurship Education: A National Study of 2005/2006. mimeo ISCTE. Reynolds P., Bosma N., Autio E., Hunt S., De Bono N., Servais I., Lopez-Garcia P., Chin N., 2005. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Data Collection Design and Implementation 1998–2003. Small Business Economics 24, 3: 205–231. Robinson P.B., 1987. Prediction of entrepreneurship based on attitude consistency model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 2807B. Sagie A., Elizur D., 1999. Achievement motive and entrepreneurial orientation: a structural analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, 3: 375–87. Schumpeter J., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Sexton D.L., Bowman N.B., 1983. Comparative entrepreneurship characteristics of students: preliminary results. In: J. Hornaday, J. Timmons, K. Vesper (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 213–32. Širec K., Rebernik M. (eds.), 2009. Dynamics of Slovenian entrepreneurship: Slovenian Entrepreneurship observatory 2008. Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor. Širec K., Močnik D., 2010. How entrepreneurs personal characteristics affect SMEs’ growth = Vpliv podjetnikovih osebnih lastnosti na rast MSP. Naše gospodarstvo = Our economy 56, 1/2: 3–12. Širec K., 2008. Diplomanti podjetništva so povedali.... In: K. Širec (ed.), 15 let izkušenj za jasen pogled v prihodnost, (Bilten IPMMP Podjetništvo, letn. 7), Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor, pp. 4–5. Širec K., 2007. The difference in personal characteristics of Slovenian male and female entrepreneurs. In: E.J. Schwarz, M.A. Wdowiak, D.A. Almer-Jarz (eds.), Entrepreneurship in a changing Europe: [proceedings]. Klagenfurt University, Department of Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship, Klagenfurt. Teixeira A.A.C., Davey T., 2009. Attitudes of Higher Education students to new venture creation: a preliminary approach to the Portuguese case. Working paper. Teixeira A.A.C., 2008. Entrepreneurial potential in Chemistry and Pharmacy courses. Results from a large survey. Journal of Business Chemistry 5, 2: 48–63. Davey T., 2010. How can universities influence student motivation for entrepreneurship? A global study of the attitudes of first-year business students. Fachhochschule Münster, University of Applied Science. Master thesis. Volery T., 2004. Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Education in Europe: What Must Be Learnt and What Can Be Taught. EntreNews 2: 1–4.
40
Building entrepreneurship careers via entrepreneurship education. The case of Slovenia
Wang C., Wong P.-K., 2004. Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Singapore. Technovation 24: 163–172. Wennekers A.R.M., Thurik A.R., 1999. Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics 13: 27–55. World Economic Forum, 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. World Economic Forum, Switzerland.
Authors’ address:
Prof. Dr. Miroslav Rebernik Assistant prof. Dr. Karin Širec University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, Razlagova 14, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia e-mails:
[email protected],
[email protected]
41
Catching up through entrepreneurship education Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
Summary: Although the macroeconomic environment provides a foundation for entrepreneurial development, product creation and development strategy require idea generation and knowledge to be embedded in an interactive learning approach. Active learning has been widely used in academia as a thought process, which requires careful planning. In our chapter, entrepreneurship teaching methods are examined, based on the institutional and economic environment. The results of the survey completed by entrepreneurship lecturers display a “national” teaching approach, which lacks interactivity for fostering entrepreneurial intent. Key words: higher education, entrepreneurship JEL codes: I 23, L 26, M 13
1. Introduction In the pursuit of sustainable development and growth, many theorists and practitioners view entrepreneurship as the ultimate tool for their achievement (Glaeser et al., 2010; Hall et al., 2010). Although some researchers point to the positive effect of entrepreneurship on job creation and innovation, others differentiate between the competitive determinants of job creation and innovation that limits developing countries’ growth (Harbi and Anderson, 2010). Indeed, a framework for the evolution of growth can only be sought in institutions and in its multidimensionality. A widely used definition, developed by Harvard Business School Professor Howard Stevenson, is that “entrepreneurship is about the pursuit of goals with resources beyond your current control”. Entrepreneurship education therefore can be found in concepts which do not apply to conventional wisdom, but rather engage in the creation of new opportunities (Brenkert, 2009).
43
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
The entrepreneurial process is demanding and requires planning, especially from an educators’ perspective. Differences in entrepreneurial attitudes are found in gender, personality and other characteristics (Zhang et al., 2009; Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998). These must be viewed with caution in order to maximize gains from the inspirational part of entrepreneurship programmes (Souitaris et al., 2007). An appropriate theoretical approach, applied to cultivate motivation for entrepreneurial endeavour, is the task not only of various teaching methods but also of carefully planned teaching, national education policy and characteristics of the country. Although in some countries entrepreneurship education might have reached its peak (Katz, 2003), in others, such as Croatia, it is still in an evolving process trying to catch up with European and U.S. trends. Graevenitz et al. (2010) found that strong entrepreneurial beliefs prior to the course, and consistency in their signals, lead to stronger intentions of becoming an entrepreneur after the course. The TEMPUS project, Fostering Entrepreneurship in Higher Education, has the goal to increase entrepreneurial intention and awareness through the provision of three e-learning courses in entrepreneurship. Its quality and effect, apart from the institutional quality assurance done by EFMD, will be assessed through a survey which examines the entrepreneurial intentions of students, based on the institutional setting of Croatia and its partner countries. This chapter takes the perspective of Audretsch and Keilbach (2008), who state that high investment in knowledge has a positive impact on knowledgebased entrepreneurship. Additionally, it follows Fayolle’s (2009) approach, which describes entrepreneurship education as being “all activities aiming to foster entrepreneurial mindsets, attitudes and skills and covering a range of aspects such as idea generation, start-up, growth and innovation”. Following from the view of Minniti (2005), which explains the geographical focus of entrepreneurship in terms of social environment characteristics, our chapter illustrates all three steps of entrepreneurial education; namely environment, institutions and programmes.
2. Institutional and economic environment The macroeconomic environment provides a foundation for entrepreneurship development. National provisions should be adapted to specific policies aimed at increasing the level of entrepreneurial undertaking. Sobel (2008) affirmed a highly significant relationship between good institutions and the index of a net entrepreneurial productivity across states. Therefore, there is a need for coordinated national policy guidelines and an institutional framework for entrepreneurship education. Nonetheless, entrepreneurship education should be undertaken in a domain of product creation, where opportunity recognition, exploration and exploitation processes are shaped by the industry type and the wealth creation process (Brush et al., 2003). Figure 1 puts the product creation process in the framework of macroeconomic environment. The Republic of Croatia is situated 44
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
Fig. 1. Entrepreneurship domain Source: Brush et al. (2003)
in Central Europe. Currently an EU candidate country, Croatia gained independence in 1991 followed by a war for independence. The newest data obtained from the World Bank’s Country reports (2010) show a population of 4.43 million in 2009. Croatia’s GDP in current USD was $58,558 billion; $69,332 billion and $63,033 billion in 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively; and resulted in a GDP growth (measured in annual percentages) of 5.47%; 2.36% and –5.8% in 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively. A growing consensus regarding the international recession spillover and internal weaknesses created a rapid fall in 2009, and the expectation of a slow recovery in 2010 and 2011. The remarkable constant rate of labour force participation measured as a percentage of the total population aged 15 and above in 2007, 2008 and 2009 was 53.2%; 53.1% and 53,1% (World Bank, 2010). It shows signs of the market’s slow adjustability, which is a consequence of the market ownership structure. The same principle applies to long-term unemployment measured as a percentages of total unemployment in 2006 and 2007 as 60.1% and 61.5% respectively (World Bank, 2010). On the other hand, Croatian workers with secondary and tertiary education it was respectively 63.3 and 18.1 percent of the entire labour force in 2007; while the total adult literacy rate, measured in percentages of people aged 15 and above in 2009, was 99.0 percent (World Bank, 2010). These figures show the economic environment in Croatia that must be taken into account when tailoring appropriate entrepreneurship education and government and EU policy for its realisation. Currently, there are several European Union documents pertaining to Croatian entrepreneurship development, including the European Charter for Small Enterprises (2000), com-
45
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
Fig. 2. Official R&D innovation system – Ministry of Science Education and Sport Source: Ministry of Science, Education and Sports (2009)
prising the obligations about education and training for entrepreneurship, and Entrepreneurship in Europe, Green Paper, European Commission (2003). The overlay of the Croatian system of higher education and research institutions is shown in Figure 2, where higher education institutions and research institutes are performers of policies made at the national level. Given Croatia’s institutional background, it is unfortunate that the scienceindustry link is not adequately exploited. Attempts to create a national policy aimed at successful knowledge commercialization are given in the creation of new entities such as the Business Innovation Center of Croatia (BICRO) and the Croatian Innovation Center (HIT) as well as Technology Transfer Offices at Universities, which bid for funding opportunities for R&D in Croatia. Apart from BICRO, HIT and Technology Transfer Offices there is the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports on a national scale; the National Science Foundation which supports university reform, PhD students, the “Brain-gain” programme, partnerships in basic research; and others. The Business Innovation Center of Croatia – BICRO Ltd., was established in 1998 in order to implement technology development and innovation support programs. As a central institution in the national innovation system set up to strengthen innovation and technology development, its three elements of suc46
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
cessful knowledge commercialization attempt to provide a strong scientific base, sources of funding and a business and technology infrastructure. Its programmes include knowledge-based companies (RAZUM), technology infrastructure (TehCro), a venture capital industry (VenCro), R&D services for companies (IRCro), a competitiveness programme (KonCro), and the Unity through Knowledge Fund (UKF) which stimulates a return of and cooperation with the diaspora. The Government of the Republic of Croatia founded the Croatian Institute of Technology – HIT Ltd. – in order for it to become a central institution of the Croatian technology network. HIT provides support and guides Croatian development and technology research, follows and predicts international technology directions, advises and provides support in terms of intellectual property rights and technology transfer, promotes participation in European R&D projects and promotes Croatian technology production and R&D potential on an international scale. Consequently, it promotes values such as knowledge, innovativeness and creativity, cooperation, entrepreneurship and sustainable development. Commercial institutes include the Energy Institute, Shipbuilding Institute, Civil Engineering Institute, Tobacco Institute, and the Mediterranean Institute for Life Sciences; while some of the corporate institutes are Ericsson Nikola Tesla, a telecommunications company; INA, the oil company; Končar Electrotechnical Institute, an electrical engineering company; as well as GlaxoSmithKline Research Centre, Zagreb; and the PLIVA Institute, both pharmaceutical companies. In the contemporary social environment, the market shapes cooperation and the progress of scientific institutes towards it. Their research should be applied by Croatian industry. However, Croatian companies have not produced any new brands in the last 15 years, while products such as Kraš or Pliva were made more than 30 years ago. There is a lack of experts, especially in industry. There is a demand for constant discussion and self-analysis to encourage innovation and the protection of intellectual property rights. The difficulties originate in understanding the pressures in the process of introducing innovative practices into an established small or larger entrepreneurial venture, by developing the organizational operating climate which should be entrepreneurial by intent, thereby allowing innovation to flourish at all levels. Croatian R&D expenditure mainly comes from the government sector (50.3%), while business enterprises account only for 35.5% of GERD in 2007. Moreover, most of the R&D originating from government funding is performed by public research institutions or higher education institutions, according to the national innovation policy structure, the Gross Domestic Expenditures on Research and Development (GERD) and R&D expenditure figures. Data on the number of researchers employed by sector in 2007 (Eurostat, 2010) show that only 10.54% of researchers are employed by the business sector and 89.46% of researchers by the public sector. The public sector includes government and higher education institutions. Hence the public sector’s strong scientific base, and the weak private base. Business sector R&D is weak, due to the lack of a critical mass of researchers, while investments in R&D oscillates at around 0.4% of GDP with the share of GERD in it being about 45% (Eurostat, 2010). The contributions
47
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
Fig. 3. Number of entrepreneurs in the Republic of Croatia Source: FINA (authors’ representation).
Fig. 4. Number of employed in entrepreneurial ventures Source: FINA (authors’ representation).
of business versus public sector R&D in Croatia should be reversed, in order to make a successful transition to a knowledge society. Nevertheless, the entrepreneurial climate in Croatia is growing. The information infrastructure is 50.47 Internet users per 100 people. In the first nine months of 2007, SMEs attracted 65.2% of the total entrepreneurial profits in Croatia, while SMEs account for 99.4% of all registered ventures (Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship, 2008). There were 10,396 and 11,055 new businesses registered in 2006 and 2007 and only 317, 344 and 330 patent applications made by Croatian residents in 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively (World Bank, 2010). Figure 3 and 4 show that the growth in the number of SMEs complements the growth in the number of people employed by SMEs (FINA, 2008). Internationalization and inter-cultural world demand promotes international entrepreneurial action. Nevertheless, international entrepreneurship emerges as a driver of change in industry, and not just as a product of the organizational culture (Zahra et al., 2005). The strongest effect of SMEs on employment, based on establishment size, is found in manufacturing (Glaeser et al., 2010). Riddle et al. (2010) explain the model whereby institutional voids, such as in the labour market or educational system, and desired outcomes, such as new firms and jobs, is filled with incubator services encouraging human, social and financial capital. Therefore, weak cooperation between science and industry is a complex problem, as it does not depend on the research sector and a goodwill factor, but rather on the industry and production structure, the technological capabilities of companies (such as the number of patents and management quality), the absorptive capacity of the economy (such as internet hosts and educated labour force), and others.
3. Characteristics of courses and programmes There are a variety of attitudes among lecturers toward entrepreneurship course content. Their complexity was revealed by the studies attempting to rank university entrepreneurship programmes (Vesper and Gartner, 1997). Moreover, while
48
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
some studies show that the effect of years of schooling on entrepreneurial intent is positive (Van der Sluis et al., 2006), others prove that some programmes actually do not increase the level of entrepreneurial intent (Oosterbeek et al., 2010). Entrepreneurial courses cover the entrepreneurial process from conception to the birth of a new firm. Florin et al. (2007) verify that an important goal of entrepreneurship education is to try and develop initiatives throughout a business programme. Most entrepreneurship education courses are still rather similar to other academic programs when teaching methods and curriculum are examined (Chan, 2005). Pihie et al. (2009) distinguished between teaching techniques used to improve entrepreneurial awareness and entrepreneurial skills. They found that the three top ranked teaching techniques used to raise students’ motivation are running a real business, visiting a business location and interviewing an entrepreneur. Therefore, a contemporary entrepreneurship education programme should stimulate interactivity and use new teaching approaches. Educators should design effective learning opportunities for students guided by didactic principles (Bechard and Toulouse, 1998). Specific and general objectives for students should be designed to tailor knowledge, skills and motivation for entrepreneurial undertakings. Some curricular and extracurricular activities that promote students’ entrepreneurial drive include: membership of entrepreneurship clubs; participation in elevator pitch competitions and business plan competitions; courses taken in starting and growing small businesses; creating or leading student organizations; taking more courses than required for graduation; participation in the study abroad programme; taking courses that develop people skills, such as personal selling; doing internships at local businesses where students work for the business and conduct a project supervised by a faculty member for credit; and doing volunteer work at nationally recognized non-profit organizations as part of a sociology course for credit (Florin et al., 2007). Other approaches aim to discover new perceptions in teaching entrepreneurship to encourage students to be different, using a realistic disposition of labour market realities and reviewing business plans by the local business community. They also advocate encouraging cooperation with high school students, promoting cooperation between engineering and business schools, creating an environment where entrepreneurial failure has few consequences, closely collaborating with consulting groups and professors and introducing students to a creative, innovative and independent environment (Carayannis et al.; 2003). When using the named techniques, learning becomes active. As Confucius suggests: “In learning and straightway practicing is there not pleasure also?” The learner is not just an object in the learning process, but its active member, the more so when the content which is thought about during lectures is as less abstract as possible and more connected to reality and actual social life. On the other hand, in order to incite students’ entrepreneurial activity and skills, teachers must develop technical, business management and personal entrepreneurial skills (Dabić, 2009). Rasmussen and Sørheim (2006) show university strategies for entrepreneurship education where greater active student involvement and individual focus stimulate entrepreneurial ventures, while pas
49
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
Fig. 5. University strategies for entrepreneurship education Source: Rasmussen & Sørheim (2006).
sive involvement and a focus on business ideas is the foundation for a case-based teaching method. The example of Croatia’s tertiary education performance could be related to the studies which found that the government leads in providing a physical
Fig. 6. Universities of Applied Sciences Colleges Faculties and other Source: Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2007, 2008 and 2009).
50
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
infrastructure for business and industry developments (Mok, 2005). Entrepreneurship education is not found on a significant scale in primary or secondary education, other than those of secondary schools of economics and business. Consequently, the relevance for teaching entrepreneurship courses can be found in the country’s higher education institutions. Therefore, we should examine the enrolment of students in higher education institutions in Croatia. The Croatian higher education system is organised between Universities of Applied Sciences, Colleges, Faculties and Art Schools. As specified in Figure 6, the majority of students enrolled in the higher education system in Croatia study at Faculties. In Croatia, Faculties are providers of all forms of higher education, such as undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate education, including PhD studies. On the other hand, Universities of Applied Sciences and Colleges are only licensed for undergraduate education. However, the Bologna process’s implementation made graduate education available at Universities of Applied Sciences and Colleges provided they acquire a government certificate for graduate education. Since in business schools entrepreneurship education is mainly thought of as part of the obligatory or elective course, or is given in other courses, we portray the composition of student enrolment according to institution. Figure 7 shows that 32% of those studying, or 8,096 students, were enrolled at the Faculty of Economics and Business Zagreb, University of Zagreb (EFZG) in the academic year 2008/2009 in our sample; 18% or 4,461 students were enrolled at the Faculty of Economics Osijek, University of J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek (EFOS); 14% or 3,559 students at the Faculty of Economics Rijeka, University of Rijeka; 15% of the students at the Faculty for Tourism and Management in Pula, University of Rijeka; and 13% at the Faculty of Economics, University of Split. Two private business schools were added to our sample: the University of Applied Sciences VERN, with 1,120 students or
Fig. 7. Business school structure in 2008/2009 based of the number of enrolled students Source: Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2007, 2008 and 2009).
51
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
Fig. 8. Students enrolled at higher education institutions Source: Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2007, 2008 and 2009).
4% of the students in our sample, and the Zagreb School of Economics and Management, also with 4% having 988 students. Other higher education institutions have considerably less enrolled students than the seven higher education institutions mentioned above. Hence, they were left out of our sample. The annual enrolment in business schools is given in Figure 8, where we see that the Faculty of Economics and Business Zagreb, University of Zagreb, is invariably the biggest institution of economics and business education in Croatia, and is followed by the Faculty of Economics Osijek, University of J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek; the Faculty of Economics Rijeka, the University of Rijeka; and the Faculty of Economics Split, University of Split, which closely compete for second place in the student enrolment statistics.
3.1. Results of the search of websites In order to collect data on entrepreneurship education in Croatia, web sites of the higher education institutions providing entrepreneurship education in the form of courses and programmes, were reviewed. The results show the following distribution of entrepreneurship teaching courses: The table 1 portrays the names and availability of entrepreneurship courses with their respective number of ECTS points. The data collected show that majority of institutions have a course in entrepreneurship1, and that all institutions with an entrepreneurship course award ECTS points for it. There were some pri1
52
Those institutions were the information on the courses were not available were left out. Where information on ECTS points was not given it is marked with a “-”.
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
Table 1. Entrepreneurship courses in higher education economics and business institutions Course in entrepreneurship
ECTS
Name of course
ECTS of the course
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business Zagreb
Entrepreneurship
6
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Organization and Informatics
Fundamentals ofentrepreneurship; Entrepreneurial financing
7
University of J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Faculty of Economics
Introduction entrepreneurship research; Entrepreneurial skills; Theory of entrepreneurship; etc.
5
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management Opalija
Entrepreneurship in services
4
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics Rijeka
Fundamentals ofentrepreneurship
6
University of Split, Faculty of Economics Split
Entnepreneurship
5
University of Applied Sciences in Požega
Economics of entrepreneurship
3; 4
University of Applied Sciences VERN
Entrepreneurship; Business plan; Entrepreneurship in international business
–
University of Applied Sciences in Slavonski Brod
Entrepreneurship
3
Business Colleae “Libertas”
Fundamentals of entrepreneurship; Management in SMEs
5
Zagreb School of Manaftment, Study of Tourism
Foundations of small and medium entrepreneurship
–
University of Applied Sciences “Nikola Tesia” in Gospic, Department of Business
Foundations of small and medium entrepreneurship
–
University of Applied Sciences “Marko Marulic” in Knin
Foundations in entrepreneurship; Entrepreneurial infrastructure, etc.
6
RRIF Colleae for Financial Management, Zagreb
Entrepreneurship
4
Business College Višnjan
Entrepreneurship m tourism
6
University of J.J. Dobrila in Pula, Department of Economics and Tourism “Mijo Mirkovic, PhD”
Entrepreneurship and economics; Entrepreneurship in tourism; Introduction to entrepreneurship
7.5; 7.5; 6
University of Zadar, Department of Economics
Entrepreneurship; Economics of entrepreneurship; Entrepreneurship in culture and tourism
6; 5
Higher education institution
53
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
vate institutions that provide entrepreneurship education without ECTS points, but not enough data was available on their websites to see if they offer a diploma or certificate. Allocated ECTS points differ according to the topic and course content. They vary from 3 to 7,5 ECTS points for fundamental courses such as the Economics of Entrepreneurship or Fundamentals of Entrepreneurship, through Entrepreneurship, to more specialised courses such as Entrepreneurship in Tourism. Most of the fundamental courses that award 3 to 4 ECTS points demand student participation in lectures, homework, maybe case studies and examination. On the other hand, more demanding courses, such as those for 6 or 7 ECTS points, require the development of a business plan and its presentation in front of the class, and other methods of students participation, including group discussions and presentations in addition to the requirements of the 3 to 4 ECTS point entrepreneurship courses. In addition to the courses in entrepreneurship delivered at business and economics higher education institutions, we found courses at other institutions such as the Faculty of Organisation and Informatics, University of Zagreb; the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb; the Faculty of Mechanical Table 2. Entrepreneurship courses in non-economics and business higher education institutions1 Course in entrepreneurship
ECTS
Name of course
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Organisation and Informatics
7
Foundations ofentrepreneurship
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing
2
Entrepreneurship and export in hipfa technology
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture
4
Entrepreneurship
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology
3
Entrepreneurship
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Kinesiology
4.5
Economics and sport management
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture
3
Introduction to entrepreneurship
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Humanities
2
Organisation of entrepreneurship, quality and work protection
University of J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Faculty of Electrical Engineering
–
Information technolo ev and entrepreneurship
Higher education institution
1
54
Those institutions were the information on the courses were not available were left out. Where information on ECTS points were not given in marked by “-”.
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb; the Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb; the Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb; the Faculty of Humanities, University of Rijeka, and the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek. Table 2 displays the higher education institutions, their entrepreneurship courses, and their corresponding ECTS points. Similar to the information provided on business and economics higher education institutions’ web sites, ECTS points for courses in entrepreneurship do not exhibit any consistency, but range from 2 to 7 ECTS points. On the other hand, the names of the courses seems to be adjusted to the higher education institution and its specialisation. The courses demand similar working packages as in economics and business studies institutions. Although we found that higher education institutions primarily connected to economics or business studies engage in entrepreneurship education, the results of the website search show that entrepreneurship extends to other institutions, in order to exhibit better commercialisation of research made by natural scientists. Apart from undergraduate courses in entrepreneurship, several institutions such as the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb and the Faculty of Economics, University of J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek, offer a programme for gaining a master’s degree in entrepreneurship.
4. A survey of entrepreneurship teaching courses 4.1. Characteristics of the sample The survey was carried out in September and October 2010 by lecturers who teach entrepreneurship, in order to examine the provision of entrepreneurship courses and their teaching methods in Croatia. There were a total of 12 respondents from higher education institutions in Croatia; 10 females and 2 males (Figure 9). There are approximately 30 lecturers, who teach entrepreneurship at universities in Croatia. The lecturers from the University of Zagreb, University of Split, University of Rijeka and J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek teach at the
Fig. 9. Gender
Fig. 10. Age range
55
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
Fig. 11. Respondents degree
Fig. 12. Course degrees which respondents currently teach
higher education institutions in Croatia other than those where they are employed. Hence, the survey response rate is considered as high. Six of them were aged 26 to 35 years old, two were aged 36 to 45, two were 46 to 55 and one was 56 years old or older (Figure 10). Respondents’ highest educational degree is given in Figure 11. 42% of respondents who teach or hold seminars in entrepreneurship possess a PhD degree, 25% have an MBA degree while 33% of the respondents have only a bachelor’s degree. Two respondents teach at the Faculty of Economics, University of Split; two at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb; and two at the Faculty of Economics, University of J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek. One respondent teaches at the University of Applied Sciences VERN, and five have not specified their institution, while all of them are full time employees of a higher education institution. The respondents teach more than 2,212 students, eight of them teach bachelor degree students while four teach master’s degree students as well (Figure 12).
4.2. Results of the survey In order to gain information and data on available entrepreneurship courses and programmes in Croatia, the survey asked questions about availability of bachelor’s degrees, diplomas, certificates, and occasional seminars in entrepreneurship, as well as asking if entrepreneurship is taught as an obligatory subject or if it is embedded in other courses, modules or electives and if the institution of origin has an entrepreneurship department. The results are displayed in Table 3. Only the data from respondents who named their institution are included in Table 3. The results show that the Faculty of Economics and Business Zagreb, University of Zagreb; the Faculty of Economics Split, University of Split; the Faculty of Economics, University of J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek and the University of Applied Sciences VERN, offer an undergraduate degree, a diploma, a certificate, occasional seminars in entrepreneurship and that all institutions teach entrepreneurship as an obligatory subject or in one or more of dedicated courses, modules or electives. The survey also shows that all institutions apart from the Faculty of Economics, University of Split possess an entrepreneurship department.
56
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
We offer a diploma in entrepreneurship
We offer a certificate in entrepreneurship
We offer occasional seminars in entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship is taught in one or more of dedicated courses, modules or electives
Entrepreneurship is taught as obligatory subject in one or more dedicated courses, modules or electives
My institution has an entrepreneurship department
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business University of Split, Faculty of Economics University of J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Faculty of Economics University of Applied Sciences VERN
We offer an undergaraduate degree in entrepreneurship
Respondent from higher education institution
Table. 3. Results of the survey
The survey then proceeded to check the frequency and usage of entrepreneurship teaching methods. The teaching methods included lectures, group discussions, field trips, role playing, students shadowing business people, developing
Fig. 13. Teaching method usage
57
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
a business plan using a computer, scenario planning, e-learning, business plan competitions, online workshops, international joint cooperation between lecturers and students, venture simulation/mini companies, experiential learning, class projects, computer simulations, guest speakers and others. According to the survey, the lecturers in Croatia use lectures and group discussions most often, while the other teaching methods such as international joint cooperation between lecturers and students, online workshops, e-learning, experiential learning are never or almost never used. On the other hand, venture simulations and field trips are also rarely used (Figure 13). Business planning is also only used sometimes by most of the respondents.
4.3. Lectures The lecture was developed as a method based on pedagogical assumptions of dependency. During the learning process, learners rely primarily on the lecturers’ knowledge and experience to make the material meaningful. Lectures are an effective method of knowledge transfer. Professorial lectures are oral representations of scientific content or some cause and effect relationship. The lecture is prepared and consciously planned for teaching, but can also develop spontaneously in answer to students’ questions. Lectures enable the rapid removal of potential obscurities during the lesson time, a structured content and transmission in a very short time period. Lectures are also used either as an introduction to a topic, or when other teaching methods are planned, in order to clarify by providing a summary. Apart from a visual representation of the content, special attention is given to content reduction (less is more!), content structure, and oral articulation. In our sample lectures are used “often” or “very often” by 83.33% of the respondents (Figure 14).
4.4. Discussions Discussions between students and professors are encouraged. Students make presentations of their ideas and chosen topics through which their acquired
Fig 14. Lectures
58
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
knowledge can be examined. Educators are directed towards helping young people to better understand a free market economy and entrepreneurship. Its basic educational approach is a linkage between education and the economy with the aim of teaching young people about the world of labour, how to make use of information, apply fundamental skills, think with a critical mind, and solve business problems. In order to stimulate the best, Fig. 15. Group discussion the most skilled, the most experienced and the best qualified students, positive comments are used. Educators discuss and think about the structure of the room during the discussion so that students talk to one another, rather than to the lecturer. Many lecturers find it useful to develop these rules for classes and discussions with students. Requiring students to make reference to a previous student’s comment also helps a discussion from becoming scattered. Therefore, our survey also concurs with the above methods, and all of our respondents use discussion “often” or “very often” (Figure 15) which is a similar result to the one obtained for the use of lectures.
4.5. Business plans We define business plan as a written document that describes the current state and presupposed future of an organization. Business plans can help perform a number of tasks for those who write and read them. With project plans in hand, entrepreneurs may have to periodically remind people about the business need
Fig. 16. Business plan competitions
59
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
that is being met and that their contributions are essential to help meet this need. Consequently, the publication of business plan literature has escalated, beginning in the 1980s (Timmons, 1980, 2004; Arkebauer, 1994; Pinson and Jinnett, 2005). As one of our students stated in his comments at the end of a semester: “a business plan is definitely the first thing that you should think about (when you have to start your new firm).” There are times when the entrepreneur must function as a salesperson to maintain the commitment of stakeholders and venture angels. According to Figure 16, business plans are used “almost never” or “sometimes” by 50% of lecturers. This figure is surprising, given the added value of a business plan to students’ entrepreneurial intent, and writing business plans is one of most highly regarded aspects of pre–start up planning. In spite of this, students in Croatia organise themselves in student associations, which hold business plan competitions. Lecturers initially help them evaluate the business plans. Only the best business plans are presented in front of the industry specialist in the selected area and the industry specialist makes the final decision on the business plan competition winner.
4.6. In class exercises Case studies and homework seem to be a common method of teaching. All respondents used this, and most of them use this “very often” or “often”, 9 out of 12 lecturers (Figure 17), while the rest use it “sometimes” or “more than sometimes”. Apart from the classical classroom setting where the teacher gives assignments and case studies, Croatian students organised a Croatia Case Challenge in 2009 and 2010, which is a part of the Balkan Case Challenge. It was a case study competition where students tried to solve companies’ problems and where 23 students participated.
Fig. 17. Class projects
60
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
4.7. Experiential learning and computer simulations A very significant educational trend in recent years has been the rise of experiential learning; learning by doing. A task or a process which students are studying through simulation has its benefits, including a taste of the anxiety and excitement involved in setting up a new business (Robinson, 1996). This can be done by computer simulations or on the Internet. Most respondents show a low tendency towards experiential learning and computer simulation according to Figures 18 and 19. Unfortunately, the lecturers in Croatia did not use computer simulations to provide students with various experiences of simulated multiple decision making process in order to confront students with realistic entrepreneurship experiences. The possibility of giving students this opportunity is missed even though the respondents are familiar with its advantages. In spite of this, an unexpected finding about entrepreneurship education showed that only 4 respondents use field trips “more than sometimes”; while 8 respondents “never” or “almost never” use the field trip method in their entrepreneurship courses (Figure 20).
Fig. 18. Experiential learning
Fig. 19. Computer simulation
61
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
Fig. 20. Field trips
4.8. Feasibility study In the classical model, the feasibility study is a time for information gathering about market viability, technical viability, business model viability, management model viability, economic and financial model viability, and exit strategy viability through discovering what can be done within certain shifting boundaries of reasonability. The student analyst must ensure that the requirements of the proposed system are consistent with the stated project objectives and that they have made their recommendations in their findings. We encouraged them to use a feasibility study as support for a decision based on a cost benefit analysis. This needs to be an analytical tool that includes describing situations, assessing the range of costs and benefits associated with several alternatives for solving a problem, give recommendations and limitations. These answers are compiled into a report that gives a clear profile of each of the options, and may recommend further options. We agree with Bickerdyke et al. (2000) that a feasibility study is an effective way to safeguard against wastage of future investments or resources, since it was estimated that only one in fifty business ideas are actually commercially viable.
4.9. Teaching entrepreneurship in Croatia The respondents were also asked how they teach entrepreneurship, relating to whether they teach a course “about” entrepreneurship or a course for entrepreneurship (Figure 21). The answers differed from “completely disagree” to “completely agree” on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 7. Most of the respondents acknowledged the fact that they are teaching a course about entrepreneurship. Thereby, they have recognized that the teaching methods used in their entrepreneurship courses are still lacking in interactivity and motivational factors. On the other hand, entrepreneurship courses which are taught in Croatia firstly discuss the role of entrepreneurship in the Croatian economy and look at the entrepreneurial competitiveness of the nation in the EU and the world. Secondly, they give an overview of the factors critical for starting a new enterprise and knowledge about how to build it into a successful business. Then they
62
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
concentrate on the attributes of entrepreneurs, institutional frameworks, developing business ideas, searching for new opportunities and gathering resources to find opportunities. Figure 22 describes the relative importance of features such as social entrepreneurship (Soysekerci and Erturgut, 2010), the characteristics of small businesses, SWOT and PEST analyses, gender, intellectual property rights, Fig. 21. Enterpreneurship courses for unhow to face risks, developing a stradergraduate students were courses about enterpreneurship rather than tegic technology analysis, managing courses for enterpreneurship business money, developing a marketing strategy, dealing with business and family, developing a new product, and focusing on entrepreneurial growth. The figure shows that lecturers reached a consensus on the importance of these topics: where small business growth and finding resources are the most important factors for success, followed by SWOT and PEST analyses, marketing strategy, managing business money and learning how to face risks. Croatian respondents mentioned intellectual property rights, gender and social entrepreneurship as the least important. Several approaches are used in Croatia for the purposes of analysis (“knowhow”) and the assessment of entrepreneurial examples pursued by successful
Fig. 22. Importance of properties
63
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
companies. The aim is to make students more aware, to develop and understand the impacts of each variable of venture creation in different circumstances and their relationships (know-how). A synthesis approach (“know-why”) is used for the second stage. This is done by modelling the current situation. Discussions with industry specialists (guests) involved in technology and strategy implementation are involved. They assess the current scope both in the breadth and depth of the subjects. One challenge is to identify the best students with the strongest motivations for high quality achievements. The methodology is based on the application of a structured approach (“know-what”) to the use of basic quality tools, and a recognition of which problem solving steps can be sequentially linked. The final case report is developed and presented in seminars. The report should outline the findings in a manner that can be used for the education and training of future entrepreneurs. Finally, sustainability (“know-who”); and in this part of the course the characteristics and uniqueness of the social system to the context are of primary interest. Each example is assessed and characterized in terms of a number of dimensions (e.g. scope, nature, and target), with their interactions and overlaps being analyzed. The greatest tasks at this stage are the elucidation of priority actions and fields. In the classroom, students studying business studies are directed to progressively build an effective business plan and to work through every aspect of it. It is very difficult to explain to them the motivation needed for a person to become an entrepreneur. Motivation can originate from a family business; risk; perceiving yourself smarter or faster than others; a recognition of the window of opportunity; gender differences; playing games; being raised in a country which fosters entrepreneurship; being born an inventor; thinking pro-actively; or entrepreneurship simply happens to someone whether or not they see entrepreneurship as a productive or an unproductive activity. Educators try to support and develop positive mindsets and attitudes about entrepreneurship as a future employment choice. Since entrepreneurship is taught at the beginning of the business studies curriculum, teachers have to be very positive, but not unrealistic, if they want to instil the important procedures and dynamic perspectives of entrepreneurship. SWOT and TOWS are used as teaching tools to challenge students by identifying strengths, analyzing weaknesses and opportunities, but also being realistic about determining threats to critical success factors and risk assessment. Models, such as the standard entrepreneurial model can help ensure that professional standards and best practices are built into the curriculum plan. Business examples include MNCs from the region, such as Podravka, Pliva (Bar’s subsidiary) as well as several SMEs and gazelles. It is important that students learn about the possibilities offered by franchising and hear about the well known case of McDonald’s. Then again, students in Croatia take part in a number of extracurricular activities which could be classified as having an entrepreneurial approach. They do internships at MNCs such as Coca-Cola, PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Deloitte, Nestle, L’Oreal; Croatian companies and institutions such as Franck, Jamnica, Zagrebačka banka, AutoHrvatska, the Croatian Chamber of Economy and others. They are also encouraged to take part in conferences and workshops 64
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
such as AIESEC’s Young Entrepreneurs in Croatia, which was held in February and March 2010. Although only 11 students participated, it is the start of a growing awareness among students about, and for, entrepreneurship. Additionally, there are guest speakers who lecture students on business practice. An example of successful cooperation with the business sector promoting interactive lectures is a collaboration between the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, and the Toyota Motor Corporation. This was initiated in September 2009 and continued through creative workshops held in December 2009 and March 2010. Mr. Tetusya Kaida, general project manager at Toyota Motor Corporation, held a lecture with a group of 15 students, with discussions focusing on corporate values and future concepts in automobile industry development. Apart from guest lecturers, case studies and internships, which are the most commonly used methods apart from lectures and group discussions, students are encouraged to join various training seminars on intellectual capital, leadership and management where they can acquire real life experience.
5. Future scope Entrepreneurship education is developing under pressure for an increased research emphasis and research rigor. MBA programmes should be primarily a research degree, as opposed to an applied entrepreneurship contest and pedagogy for teaching at undergraduate level. MBA or PhD students in entrepreneurship may face more difficulties in the socialization process than students of other disciplines (such as medicine, chemistry, engineering,) due to perceptions that entrepreneurship lacks legitimacy as a research domain. The natural strengths of entrepreneurship are its multidisciplinary basis; an interleaved focus that connects government and researchers. Moreover, a number of major academic institutions have developed programmes in entrepreneurial research, and Babson College conducts a symposium entitled “Frontiers in Entrepreneurship Research”. Hence Croatian entrepreneurship education should evolve into a research discipline and focus available to students. Furthermore, some researchers propose a whole range of initiatives to develop entrepreneurship in Croatia such as developing distance learning capacities and lifelong learning programmes, in addition to designing an SME training model for Croatia, and an SME Policy Think Tank in Zagreb founded in participation with the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.
6. Conclusion Some studies state that the lack of legitimacy and the liability of newness create the same problems for entrepreneurship education as for start-ups (Fayolle, 2009). Learners should have the possibility to deal with tasks in an active rather than a passive manner, and orient themselves to work independently within multiple and authentic contexts and actual situations (Dabić, 2009).
65
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić
Active learning has been widely used in academia for a long period of time. Rasmussen and Sørheim (2006) state that many initiatives traditionally focused on teaching individuals are increasingly becoming more action-oriented, and emphasize learning by doing. A contemporary subject, together with sound criteria for its selection, can provide added value to student interest in a teaching unit and greater motivation for in-class involvement. Researchers posit that active participation leads to self discovery and holds learners responsible for their progress (Sterns and Doverspike, 1989). It is not enough to be held responsible for concrete outcomes; an entrepreneur must ask for and obtain enough authority to execute their responsibilities. Specifically, an entrepreneur must have the authority to acquire and coordinate resources, request and receive SME cooperation, and make appropriate, binding decisions which have an impact on the success of the SME (Gorman et al. in Green and Rice, 2007). It is an entrepreneurship lecturer’s task to incorporate all ideas and skills in order to guide concept generation and make its output useful. Unfortunately, the Croatian sample has shown that many universities still do not teach entrepreneurship as an active course, and neglect to use computer simulations, scenario playing, workshops via the Internet and venture simulation. The majority of students attend courses in entrepreneurship that are focused on lectures and group discussions; although lecturers recognize the fact that their courses need interactivity and a focus on student self discovery so they can organising their time to attain the most from their business studies education relating to entrepreneurial behaviour. In conclusion, lecturers’ hearts and minds must grow into the idea of forming a new approach which should inspire students to become proactive and success oriented. This can only be done by applying an enthusiastic approach lead by factors that are “for” entrepreneurship and not “about” entrepreneurship.
References Anderson M., Brown W., Whittam G., 2005. The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in HE. Report for Business Education Support Team, May. Arkebauer J.B., 1994. The McGraw-Hill Guide to Writing a High-Impact Business Plan: A Proven Blueprint for First-Time Entrepreneurs. 1 ed. McGraw-Hill. Audretsch D.B., Keilbach M., 2008. Resolving �������������������������������������������������� the knowledge paradox: Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy 37: 1697–1705. Bechard J.-P., Toulouse J.-M., 1998. Validation of a didactic modelfor the analysisof training objectives in Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 13: 317–332. Bickerdyke I., Lattimore R., Madge A., 2000. Business Failure and Change: An Australian Perspective. Productivity Research Paper, Canberra. Brenkert G.G., 2009. Innovation, rule breaking and the ethics of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 24: 448–464. Brown W., 2002. Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the creation of high growth firms. Education + Training 44(8/9): 398–405.
66
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
Brush C.G., Duhaime I.M., Gartner W.B., Stewart A., Katz J., Hitt M.A., Alvarez S.A., Meyer G.D., Venkatarman S., 2003. Doctoral education in the field of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management 29(3): 309–331. Bruyat C., Julien P.-A., 2000. Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 16(2): 165–80. Chan E.S.K., 2005. Entrepreneurship education in Australia – A preliminary study. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability. Carayannis E.G., Evans D., Hanson M., 2003. A cross-cultural learning strategy for entrepreneurship education: outline of key concepts and lessons learned from a comparative study of entrepreneurship students in France and the US. Technovation 23(9): 757–771. Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2007. Students enrolled at professional and university study in winter semester of the academic year 2006/2007. Croatian Bureau of Statistics, year XLIV., Number 8.1.7, in Zagreb at 26th June 2007. Available online at: http://www.dzs. hr/Hrv/publication/2007/8–1–7_1h2007.htm on 10th October 2010. Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2008. Students enrolled at professional and university study (undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate) and graduate students in winter semester of the academic year 2007/2008. Croatian Bureau of Statistics, year XLV., Number 8.1.12, in Zagreb at 16th July 2008. ISSN 1334–0565. Available at: http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv/ publication/2008/8–1–12_1h2008.htm online on 10th October 2010. Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2009. Students enrolled at professional and university study in winter semester of the academic year 2008/2009. Croatian Bureau of Statistics, year XLVI., Number 8.1.7, in Zagreb at 29th June 2009. Available online at: http://www.dzs. hr/hrv/publication/2009/8–1–7_1h2009.htm on 10th October 2010. Dabić M., 2009. Entrepreneurship Teaching at Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb. In: B. Marinova (eds.), How Higher Education Institutions in Europe Deal with the Qulity Assurance of their Entrepreneurship Programmes, EFMD, ENQHEE, European Commision, Socrates, Brusselles, 18–29. De Faoite D., Henry C., Johnson K., Van der Sijde P., 2003. Education and training for entrepreneurs: a consideration of initiatives in Ireland and the Netherlands. Education + Training 45(8/9): 430–438. Eurostat, 2010. Country profiles: Croatia. Available online at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa. eu/guip/themeAction.do on 15th September 2010. Fayolle A., 2009. Entrepreneurship Education in Europe: Trends and Challenges. OECD Leed Programme. Universities, innovation and entrepreneurship: Good practive workshop, 12th June 2009. Fiet J.O., 2000a. The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 16(1): 1–24. Fiet J.O., 2000b. The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing 16(2): 101–117. FINA, 2008. Financial data on SMEs. Available at: www.fina.hr on: 15th September 2008. Florin J., Karri R., Rossiter N., 2007. Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education: An attitudinal approach. Journal of management education 31(1): 17–42. Gibb A.A., 1993. The enterprise culture and education: Understanding enterprise education and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals. International Small Business Journal 11(3): 11–34. Gibb A.A., 1996. Entrepreneurship and small business management: Can we afford to neglect them in the twenty-first century business school? British Journal of Management 7(4): 309–321.
67
Marina Dabić, Maja Bašić Gibb A.A., 2002. Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship. Industry and Higher Education 16(1): 135–148. Gorman G., Hanlon D., King W., 1997. Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a tenyear literature review. International Small Business Journal 15(3): 56–77. Graevenitz G. van, Harhoff D., Weber R., 2010. The effects of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 76: 90–112. Houben G., Mercken R., 2009. Entrepreneurship education: Do student-companies offer superior value? Available at: http://www.euroeconomica-danubius.ro/arhiva/euroeconomica%2021/4.houben.pdf on: 19th December 2009. Glaeser E.L., Kerr W.R., Ponzetto G.A.M., 2010. Clusters of entrepreneurship. Journal of Urban Economics 67: 150–168 Green P.G., Rice M.P., 2007. Entrepreneurship Education. An Elgar Reference Collection, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA Günther G., 1996. Praxis politischer Bildungsarbeit. Methoden und Arbeitshilfen. 4 Aufl. Institute für Friedenspädagogik, Tübingen. Hall J.K., Daneke G.A., Lenox M.J., 2010. Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future decisions. Journal of Business Venturing 25: 439–448. Harbi S.E., Anderson A.R., 2010. Institutions and the shaping of different forms of entrepreneurship. The Journal of Socio-Economics 39: 436–444. Hynes B., Richardson I., 2007. Entrepreneurship education – a mechanism for engaging and exchanging with the small business sector. Education + Training 49(8/9): 732–744. Hynes B., 1996. Entrepreneurship education and training – introducing entrepreneurship into non-business disciplines. Journal of European Industrial Training 20 (8). Hytti U., O’Gorman C., 2004. What is enterprise education? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries. Education + Training 46(1): 11–23. Katz J.A., 2003. The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing 18(2): 283–300. Kourilsky M.L., Walstad W., 1998. Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge, attitudes, gender differences, and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing 13: 77–88. Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship, 2008. Operative plan for inciting SMEs for 2008. Available at: www.mingorp.hr on August 2008. Minniti M., 2005. Entrepreneurship and network externalities. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 57: 1–27. Mok K.H., 2005. Fostering entrepreneurship: Changing role of government and higher education governance in Hong Kong. Research Policy 34: 537–554. Oosterbeek H. van, Praag M., Ijsselstein A., 2010. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review 54: 442–454. Pihie Z.A.L., Sani A.S.A., 2009. Exploring the entrepreneurial mindset of students: implications for improvement of entrepreneurial learning at university. The Journal of International Social Research 2(8): 340–345. Pinson L., Jinnett J., 2005. Anatomy of a Business Plan: A Step-By-Step Guide to Starting Smart, Building the Business, and Securing Your Company's Future (Anatomy of a Business Plan). 6th ed., Dearborn Trade Publishing, A Kaplan Professional Company. Rae D., 2000. Understanding entrepreneurial learning: a question of how. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 6(3): 145–159.
68
Catching up through entrepreneurship education
Rasmussen E.A. Sørheim R., 2006. Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation 26: 185–194. Riddle L., Hrivnak G.A., Nielsen T.M., 2010. Transnational diaspora entrepreneurship in emerging markets: Bridging institutional divides. Journal of International Management, 14page available online at: doi:10.1016/j.intman.2010.09.009. on 9th September 2010. Robinson P.B., 1996. The MINEFIELD challenge: The challenge in entrepreneurship education. Simulating&Gaming 27(3): 350–364. Sobel R., 2008. Testing Baumol: Institutional quality and the productivity of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 23: 641–655. Sogunro O.A., 2004. Efficacy of role-playing pedagogy in training leaders: some reflections. Journal of Management Development 23(4): 355–71. Souitaris V., Zerbinati S., Al-Laham A., 2007. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing 22: 566–591. Soysekerci S., Erturgut R., 2010. Improvement of non-governmental organization entrepreneurship in vocational schools: Turkey case. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2: 1849–1854. Sterns H., Doverspike D., 1989. Aging and the training and learning process. In: I. Goldstein and Associates (eds.), Training and development in organizations. Jossey, Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Taylor D.W., Thorpe R., 2004. Entrepreneurial learning: a process of co-participation. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 11(2): 203–211. Timmons J.A., 1980. A business plan is more than a financing device. Harvard Business Review 58(2): 28–34. Timmons J.A., Zacharakis A., Spinelli S., 2004. Business plans that work a guide for small business. McGraw-Hill, New York,. van der Sluis J., van Praag M., van Witteloostuijn A., 2006. Why are the returns to education higher for entrepreneurs than for employees? University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Working Paper. Vesper K.H., Gartner W.B., 1997. Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing 12(5): 403–421. Zahra S.A., Korri J.S., Yu J.F., 2005. Cognition and international entrepreneurship: implications for research on international opportunity recognition and exploitation. International Business Review 14: 129–146. Zhang Z., Zyphur M.J., Narayanan J., Arvey R.D., Chaturvedi S., Avolio B.J., Lichtenstein P., Larsson G., 2009. The genetic basis of entrepreneurship: Effects of gender and personality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 110: 93–107. World Bank, 2010. Country Reports 2010. Available online at http://data.worldbank.org/ country/croatia on 15th September 2010.
Authors’ address:
Prof. dr. sc. Marina Dabić, PhD Maja Bašić University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business Zagreb, J.F. Kennedy Square 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia e-mails:
[email protected],
[email protected]
69
Entrepreneurial education in France Olivier Hueber
Summary: The French educational courses devoted to the promotion of entrepreneurship are mainly characterised by a gap between French Business Schools (Grandes écoles à la Françaises) and the public Universities. Numerous promotional activities that are very fruitful in term of firm creation can be observed but these are not well coordinated. Such a waste of energy and information has to be deplored. Certainly, many mechanisms for coordination have emerged over the last few years. In this chapter, the French’s entrepreneurial education system is described and the strengths and weakness of such a system are highlighted. In the light of the Cre@tude project set up by the University of Nice, Sophia Antipolis, several recommendations are proposed with the aim of fostering entrepreneurial education in France. Key words: enntrepreneurship, higher education JEL codes: I 23, L 26, M 13
1. Introduction In France, the level of entrepreneurial activity is one of the lowest in the OECD countries, and despite some recent progress; entrepreneurship courses are not yet widespread in the French education system. Consequently, decisions regarding firm creation in France do not derive mainly from professional projects conducted when studying. Nevertheless, French educational courses geared towards the promotion of entrepreneurship are rapidly and efficiently being restructured. Numerous promotional activities are very promising in term of firm creation, even if they are not well coordinated with each other. With the aim of understanding the entrepreneurial education system in France, we firstly describe the importance and linkages of each institution belonging to such a system. In particular, we describe the specific separation between Public Universities and the “Grandes Ecoles”. We also explain the institutional links between universities, business schools, research institutes (public or private) and new or existing entrepreneurs. Secondly, we highlight the complex framework of entrepreneurial
71
Olivier Hueber
education in France by a concrete example (called Cré@tude) set up by the University of Nice – Sophia Antipolis.
2. Overview of provision of the Country France is the birth place of the word “entrepreneurship”. It was in France that an economist named Richard Cantillon (1755) first pointed out the phenomeTable 1. Total entrepreneurial activity ranked non in his influential text “Essai sur la by country nature du commerce en General”. In Country TEA 2009 (%) his writings, Cantillon formally defiChina 18.8 nes an entrepreneur as the “agent who buys means of production at certain Latvia 10.5 prices in order to combine them into United States 8.0 a new product”. United Kingdom 5.7 Even though France is the country Croatia 5.6 of Cantillon’s writings, the level of Slovenia 5.4 entrepreneurial activity measured by Spain 5.1 the TEA (Total Entrepreneurial ActivFrance 4.3 ity) is one of the lowest in the OECD Russia 3.9 countries1. Italy 3.7 The most widely recognized factor Japan 3.3 favouring entrepreneurship in France World Average 10.7 is family background, but this is typiSource: Global Entrepreneurship monitor.
Fig. 1. Total entrepreneurial activity (TEA): Time Series Source: Global Entrepreneurship monitor. 1
72
TEA by country measures entrepreneurial activity as a Percent of GDP.
Entrepreneurial education in France
cally a factor that cannot be directly Table 2. Companies created in France influenced by education. A number according to the age of the creator of authors emphasize the part played in 2006 (%) by the educational system in the omoMen Women tion of an Entrepreneurial Spirit prior Under 25 years 6.1 7.3 to the intention to set up a business From 25 to 29 years 14.5 16.4 (Fayolle, 2010). From 30 to 34 years 17.1 16.4 Entrepreneurship education in From 35 to 39 years 18.4 18.3 France is mainly linked to ‘professionFrom 40 to 44 years 16.0 15.5 al discovery’. However, this type of education is rarely specified in national From 45 to 49 Years 11.6 11.8 curricula. It is normally provided at More than 50 Years 16.3 14.3 the initiative of local authorities, indiMetropolitan France 100.0 100.0 vidual schools, or specialist organisaSource: Insee, enquête Sine. tions, through voluntary activities. As a result, despite some recent progress, enterprise and entrepreneurship are not yet widely recognised in the French education system. Less than 25% of company creators in France are under 30 years old (see Table 2). This indicates that decisions regarding firm creation in France arise more in relation to professional career progress, than as a direct and natural consequence of a professional project conducted when studying. A prerequisite for being well informed about the nature of the links between pupils and students and French educational courses devoted to the promotion of entrepreneurship is to consider the most recent surveys and enquiries. The Retis network commissioned a survey in 2009 to assess the entrepreneurial desire of French students. Retis brings together institutions of higher education and research, science parks, incubators and the European Centres of Enterprise and Innovation2. Some highlights: –– 43% of students considering becoming entrepreneurs in their future career; –– 81% of students believe that SMEs give better recognition to the work of their employees; –– 49% of students believe SMEs more innovative than large firms. The figure of 43% is promising. Contrary to common belief French students are moderately inclined towards entrepreneurship. In accordance with the IPSOS poll institute (November 2009), there is a huge need for training and information in universities. –– 68% of students in Business schools think they will be trained in entrepreneurship in their curriculum, against only 21% of students in public universities; –– 30% of students, in general, have access to a personal information point on entrepreneurship: 56% in Business schools and 25% in Public universities. 2
http://www.retis-innovation.fr/
73
Olivier Hueber
According to a survey by the Opinion Way Institute in December 2009 among over 1000 students and pupils from professional high schools, it is difficult to become an entrepreneur in France at the end of one’s studies. 95% of those surveyed assert that setting up a new business is difficult (51%) or very difficult (44%)3. Even though they realise the difficulty of entrepreneurial activity, 45% of those surveyed have the intention of becoming an entrepreneur during their professional lives. Such a figure is not that much different to those highlighted by the RETIS survey mentioned above. The French educational system must urgently promote information about entrepreneurship among students and pupils. The Opinion Way survey of 2009, shows that nearly 75% of the students and pupils surveyed estimate that they did not receive sufficient information during their studies about French mechanisms and institutions devoted to promoting and helping new firm creation. After having shed light on the main data concerning the links between pupils, students and entrepreneurship, it is necessary to discuss the different activities and institutions devoted to fostering entrepreneurship in France. In France, programmes offered by the public education system include components on the entrepreneurial mindset and company start-ups, especially in those specific fields where the holders of a diploma can be expected to become company heads or managers. Empirical observation clearly teaches us that the more educated the students are the more their entrepreneurship activity increases (see Table 3). A new approach to training teachers was introduced in 2007. Every teacher is now required to know the world of enterprise, and needs to prove this knowledge before being recruited. During the preparations for selecting teachers, every future teacher must do an internship of at least three weeks in a company. In this preparation phase, every future teacher of a technical or professional discipline needs to gain three months’ experience in the profession that he/she will teach. After being appointed, every teacher at a ‘lycée professionnel’, regardless of his/her discipline, will have another internship of three weeks in a company during the first year of specialisation4. This internship focuses on the links between school and enterprise, and ends with the design of pedagogical tools. There are approximately one hundred Professional Masters or Professional Bachelors in France specialising in entrepreneurship and management careers5. Most of their courses, and this is especially true for the Professional Masters, prepare the students for an academic career.
3 4
5
74
http://www.opinion-way.com/ The Lycée Professionnel leads to several, different vocational diplomas in all fields of study. The enrolled students are not planning to enter higher education, as the schooling is through vocational training for craftspeople and internships in companies. It is a good route for students more interested in a hands-on educational approach than in academic schooling and learning. Professional master titled in French “Master professionnel Métiers de l’Entrepreneuriat et du Management”.
Entrepreneurial education in France
Table 3. Distribution of entrepreneurs in France based on their qualifications and their previous situation in 2006 (%)
Women Men Qualification
no degree
9.3
14.9
Undergraduate general degree (CEP, BEPC, brevet élémentaire, brevet des collèges)
7.1
7.7
Professional undergraduate degree (CAP / BEP)
19.1
27.8
Professional bachelor degree (Baccalauréat technique ou professionnel, autres brevets)
10.1
9.9
General Bachelor Degree (Baccalauréat général)
9.0
6.4
Postgraduate degree (University degree)
45.4
33.3
Total
100.0
100.0
In activity (salarié, indépendant, chef d'entreprise…)
42.1
53.1
Unemployed from less than 1 year
20.4
21.4
Unemployed from more than one year
21.6
18.4
No anterior activity
15.9
6.8
Total
100.0
100.0
Anterior professional situation before the enterprise creation
Source: Insee, enquête SINE 2006.
Nevertheless, according to the INSEE studies on entrepreneurship, five years after firm creation, the experience of the entrepreneur overrides their diploma.
3. Characteristics of courses and programmes in France Any overview of the situation needs to consider separately the two key components of higher education in France: the “Grandes Ecoles” and Universities. Each Grande Ecole has its own, very specific, special entrance exam. For the rest of the (essentially free) public universities, they admit anyone. In very general terms, the “Grandes Ecoles” appear to be more advanced than universities in teaching entrepreneurial attitudes and business creation. At the universities, the situation is changing for the better in scientific higher education, but things are moving more slowly in other non-economic disciplines.
3.1. Entrepreneurial Education at the state level Since 1998, the French secretary of State for Small and Medium sized enterprises offers five day training sessions to each new entrepreneur in the sectors of commerce and craft industries.
75
Olivier Hueber
This introductory course in management, called “5 jours pour entreprendre” (five days to undertake), allows new entrepreneurs to acquire a basic training in 35 hours, useful for business management . The educational content is structured around five themes: –– Formulating a project concept to enter into a competitive market; –– Building business value; –– Building a profitable project concept; –– Dealing with the legal, social security and tax costs; –– Utilising new technologies. Under the plan for youth employment managed by the “ministère du travail, de la solidarité et de la fonction publique” (Ministry of Labour, Solidarity and Civil Service), three measures were created to encourage the recruitment of young graduates with variable contracts . These measures are: –– Standard aid package for hiring young professional trainees; –– Standard aid package for hiring a first or additional apprentice; –– Application of “zero charge” for hiring apprentices by employers of 11 or more employees. Recently a new type of company, called a “Young Academic Enterprise”, has been granted significant advantages to encourage business creation by researchers and students. In France, the national competition ‘young initiative’ organised by the Ministry of Education rewards the best enterprise projects every year. This award aims to encourage students’ creativity and enterprising spirit by selecting the best projects on setting up a business (virtual or real) developed in vocational, technical and general secondary schools, or apprenticeship schools, in any field of study. The development of the promotion of entrepreneurship in the French education system is among the objectives of the Ministry for Research and New Technologies. To this end, the OPPE, the Observatory of Pedagogical Practices in Entrepreneurship was created in April 2001 by the Ministries of National Education, Research and Industry, the Agency for start-ups, and the Academy of Entrepreneurship. Its creation is part of government plans for the creation of businesses and Innovation. The OPPE is therefore a tool for sharing, promoting and exchanging information among entrepreneurial pedagogies, schools, teachers, students, entrepreneurship support networks and institutions. The OPPE’s mission is to identify, disseminate, analyse the activities needed at all levels of the French educational system aimed at developing leadership among young people, preparing them to conduct personal or professional projects and innovatively train them in the art of business creation. 6
7
6
7
76
Such a teaching programme is managed by the local chambers of commerce and industry (CCI) http://www.cci.fr/web/portail-acfci/accueil French Decree n° 2010–894 of 2010-08-30.
Entrepreneurial education in France
The OPPE has to undertake the following seven tasks: –– Identifying and disseminating mechanisms for entrepreneurial development and enterprise creation at all levels of the French education system; –– Offering teachers a space for gathering and sharing teaching tools with the aim of educating and training young people in entrepreneurship; –– Providing students and teachers summaries of the literature in the field of entrepreneurship; –– Produce analyses and studies; –– Evaluating and exchanging ideas about teaching practices through OPPE days held each year in partnership with schools; –– Promoting the direction and activities of students, young entrepreneurs and teachers through interviews; –– Supplying information related to the teaching of entrepreneurship through the “Education and entrepreneurship” newsletter of the APCE. A database composed of OPPE “activities” records as well as “institutions and agencies” fact sheets governing these activities is available on a website. The Ministry of the Economy, Industry and Employment each year organizes a programme called “innovons ensemble” to develop an entrepreneurial culture in France, mainly among students or new graduates. The objective of “innovons ensemble” is to promote synergies between entrepreneurs, students and actors in innovation with the aim of cultivating their tastes for entrepreneurship and innovation. The jury consists of professionals in innovation, innovative entrepreneurs, researchers and representatives of relevant partners in the creation and funding of innovation. After evaluating the competing projects, three winners are selected. The Retis network is in charge of organizing this programme in collaboration with the Department of Competitiveness, Industry and Services and the Ministry of Higher Education and Research . At a European level, France is the third country, after Spain and Italy, which contributes most to the “Erasmus for young entrepreneurs programme” in terms of the enrolment of new entrepreneurs, and the fourth country with regard to the registration of home contractors. The sectors that attract most of these young French entrepreneurs are advertising (16%) and information technology (10%). The Erasmus for young entrepreneurs was developed in the year 2009 to give budding entrepreneurs the opportunity to train with an experienced leader of a small or medium enterprise established in another EU country . Two specific initiatives can be quoted: the creation of nine polytechnic schools in universities with entrepreneurial teaching; and a “house of entrepreneurs” in a few universities, offering entrepreneurial courses to students. As regards professors, initiatives have been taken to develop exchanges, training and research activities (“Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat”). Pedagogical experiences and tools for 8
9
10
8 9
10
http://www.entrepreneuriat.net. http://www.innovons-ensemble.com/ http://www.erasmus-entrepreneurs.eu
77
Olivier Hueber
entrepreneurship are collected and disseminated through a national database (OPPE). The government is currently working on new initiatives to develop entrepreneurship values and initiatives within the student community. In September 2008, Valerie Pecresse, Minister of Higher Education and Research, signed with François Drouin, President of OSEO, a convention establishing a new student loan system. For a loan guaranteed by the state, a student must contact a banking institution that has signed a contract with OSEO. The Public Institution OSEO has three businesses: –– Support for innovation; –– Guarantees for bank loans and equity investors; –– Partnership financing. This loan is available to all students (under 28 years, French or European Union national). No personal guarantee or personal contribution is required. An increasing number of students use this loan to start an entrepreneurial adventure. The OSEO, which supports almost 50 000 entrepreneurs per year, is involved in the management of funds entrusted by the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, based on its experience in loan guarantees to SMEs . 11
3.2. Entrepreneurial education in the Grande Ecoles Empirical evidence shows us that in the Grandes Ecoles, very few students (around 2%) choose to join the Entrepreneurship Master course, which requires applicants to have a personal business project. Some schools of engineering and business as well as some research centres have set up incubators to support the creation of businesses projects with their former students or researchers. These incubators can provide accommodation and coaching as well as facilitate reconciliation between network members. For instance, the SKEMA High School has developed The High Tech Entrepreneurship Centre in collaboration with a private company called Human Ventures. This centre was initially designed for Gaz de France. It received the trophy “Management & Compétences 2004 d’Enjeux les Echos CEGOS” . The SKEMA High school has set up a tool called ISMA 360 (Innovation Systemic Marketing Analysis) whose aim is to reduce the failure rate of European start-ups. The ISMA 360 method examines key market needs along with a new approach to marketing segmentation. This method is currently used by several incubators in Europe. The ISMA method contains a strong pedagogical message, both internal and external, about the representation of marketing through systems analysis. For entrepreneurs who have learned to use the method after a two day training session, the result, even if only partial, is perceived as gaining a deeper understanding and even a confirmation of the “feeling” they already had about the market. 12
11 12
78
http://www.oseo.fr/ http://www.skema.edu/en
Entrepreneurial education in France
3.3. Entrepreneurial education in the universities The introduction of an “entrepreneuriat” within universities is a relatively recent development. Only 10% of French SMEs are in contact with a French university, against 35% in Europe and 55% in the United States. With the aim of changing this situation, the French Minister of Research, Claudie Haigneré, helped several universities in France to set up an “Entrepreneurship House” (une maison de l’entrepreneunariat). The “Entrepreneurship Houses” are located within a university. They work in partnership with the higher education institutions of the region by pooling resources and educational material. They are places of openness, togetherness and a sharing between students, teachers, researchers and industrialists. They are places for lectures, debates, and the organisation of visits. An Entrepreneurship House is a space on the campus dedicated to Entrepreneurship for all the students. The objective of such a house is to promote and disseminate entrepreneurship among University Campus students. Most of the time, an Entrepreneurship House includes within its walls student associations. An Entrepreneurship House performs two main tasks: –– Raising awareness through teaching programmes; –– Providing assistance through an Entrepreneurship Network. Partnerships are established with the socio-economic environment and are financed by the region (conseil régional) and the local communities; –– Giving information and assistance to students with their own business idea. On a practical point, the Entrepreneurship House coordinates and sets up entrepreneurship courses, conferences and seminars for the students, PhD seminars (Ecole Doctorale) and business plan competitions. The French Universities of Lille, Nantes, Poitiers, Limoges, Marseille and Clermont-Ferrand were the first to create on their campuses an Entrepreneurship House. For nearly ten years now an increasing number of “Licences Professionnelles” (Vocational Degree) and University Degrees (DU) devoted to the teaching of entrepreneurship have been set up by Universities. Over the whole of France, the OPPE has identified 130 training centres having courses and activities for the promotion of entrepreneurship. Taught over a year, the “licence professionnelle” offers theoretical teaching and practical hands-on teaching, including mandatory training in a professional context, especially during work placements and supervised live projects. The teaching methods used encourage students to take personal initiatives and work independently so that they can put into practice the knowledge and skills acquired. With this in mind, work placements or supervised live projects involve writing a paper which the students have to defend in front of a jury of teaching staff and professionals. The “licence professionnelle” brings the student into contact with the world of work, which enables the student to enhance his/her
79
Olivier Hueber
training and professional project as well as making it easier for the student to find employment upon graduation. In France, most of the training programmes are devoted to an awareness of entrepreneurship. According to Fayolle A. (2000), only 25% of entrepreneurial teaching programmes are highly specialised and 75% pursue general goals.
4. The Science – industry link In France, the mobility of teachers and researchers between higher education and business is encouraged at the state level. Since 1999, a law has allowed researchers to quit universities and labs to create new ventures based on their work. A network of academic incubators has been set up to support them. They are allowed to go back to university if they desire. The French Research Ministry along with regional councils has funded 29 academic regional incubators since 1999. Incubators were set up by the decree 2000–843 of September 13th, 2000. The organization of the incubator has to provide for the setting up of a network of experts to give concrete support, both material and financial, to selected projects brought to them by ordinary people. Its objective is to ensure the transfer to the socio-economic world the three fundamental missions of the university (training, evaluation and research), both through its activities and the creation of innovative companies. The incubators have been founded in partnership with public research organisations (universities, government research centres, engineering schools) in order to bring: –– Scientific and technical support to projects through research laboratories; –– About 40000 euros for projects to fund market studies, industrial property rights studies, support for recruitment, and finalising business-plans; –– Coaching for the project’s leaders and teams. The budget provided by the National Agency for Research (ANR) was 21 M€ to support 765 new projects for the incubation period 2007–2009. Between 2000 and 2009, 1050 enterprises were created by researchers in France through academic incubators. 45% of births were from public reTable 4. Provenance by technological sector search, 50% were linked to public reof firms created by academic incubators search through partnership contracts Sectors % and 5% came from private research. According the Centre for Strategy Sciences / biotechnology 39 & Evaluation Services (CSES), the failInformation technology and 32 communication ure rate of new ventures is only 15.8% Engineering sciences 25 for new ventures that are incubated, whereas this failure rate is about 50% Social sciences / services 4 for new ventures that have not been Total 100 supported by incubators. Source: French Ministry of higher education and research.
80
Entrepreneurial education in France
Since the year 2008, a new status of self-entrepreneur (autoentrepreneur) has been created. Such a status helps students to develop a business parallel to their studies or to supplement their income. Nowadays, the creation of the status of sole trader is known by 55% of students. The self-entrepreneur status simplifies the creation, management and termination of an activity. The risks to the individual entrepreneur are reduced. During the year 2007, a new status of “young academic enterprise” (Jeune Entreprise Universitaire) was created by the ministry of commerce and industry. Such a legal framework aims to promote entrepreneurship among students involved in research at their university. A “young academic enterprise” must be managed or owned, totalling at least 25%, by students or holders of master’s or doctoral degrees for less than 5 years, or teacher-researchers. It must also enter into an agreement with the higher education institution which handles the research results. These businesses receive numerous tax breaks: –– The total exemption of fixed annual tax; –– Exemption of employer contributions on the wages of those linked to R&D; –– Full tax exemption on profits for the first three profitable years. This exemption is 50% for the subsequent two years; –– Exemption from land tax on built property as well as business tax on consideration of local authorities and public institutions inter-communal cooperation with their own tax.
5. Case study: Cré@tude In the November 2009, the Ministry of Higher Education and Research plus the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Employment launched a call for proposals to promote the need to engage students and graduates by allowing them greater access to educational tools, training and support. This proposal was titled “Création de pôles de l’entrepreneuriat étudiant”. The proposition for creating “pôles de l’entrepreneuriat étudiant” (Student’s entrepreneurial poles) originates from heads of higher education institutions, teachers, agents supporting the creation of enterprises, entrepreneurs and actors from the financing of entrepreneurship. Moreover, each entrepreneurship pole must designate a “referent entrepreneurship” within each higher education institution with a mandate to steer students towards entrepreneurial careers and to support their projects for company creation. These referents should work in conjunction with the offices of employment advisors within universities. Several actors in higher education along the French Riviera have come together to meet the ministerial proposal for the creation of centres of student entrepreneurship. With this mind a project named “Cré@atude” was designed. Such a project is characterized by an unprecedented mobilization of the main institutions of higher education (the Universities of Nice – Sophia Antipolis – and Toulon-Var, as well as prestigious business schools), plus institutions devoted to
81
Olivier Hueber
the promotion of innovation (several incubators located all around the French Riviera) and professional networks and employers unions (see Annex 1). The Cré@tude project was first formed by the sharing of good practice among the participating institutions with a view to its deployment at other institutions. It is also an ambition to expand the activities to all disciplines, whereas today they are mostly reserved for management students. Such a project finally has a collective ambition to go beyond the existing initiatives and to imagine a common framework with regard to the student population of the French Riviera. More precisely, the Cré@tude team set up an Annual Entrepreneurship day for students and a web portal with a social networking aspect. All initiatives and activities are branded Cré@tude to provide coherence and establish a high visibility for the whole organization. Cre@tude covers all levels of education (Bachelor, Master, Doctorate) and all stages of entrepreneurial training (awareness, training, coaching). The mobilization of all the actors needed for these tasks is the real added value of this project. However, given the magnitude of the task, Cré@tude focuses on educating bachelor students, and continues to strengthen and gradually expand activities aimed at Master and Doctorate level. The decision to prioritise degree students has a double goal. First it is to start educating younger students and then mould them during their studies. The next step is to enable undergraduates to better reflect on their personal and professional projects by exposure to opportunities for the creation and recovery of businesses in the areas of crafts, trade, industry and the creative arts.
6. Conclusions Societal and Educational aspects, as well as the creation of an entrepreneurial environment at Universities or management schools, are the keys to promoting the French entrepreneurial student population. The development of entrepreneurship training in the French education system is not just a fad but also a serious trend. The constant evolution in the number of programmes, the diversity of audiences, and the goals and methods of teaching, shape a very heterogeneous world. Overall, French graduates ignore a fairly wide number of entrepreneurial opportunities. Yet some of them decide to take action. The French model of higher education for the promotion of entrepreneurship has two features: 1. The role of large schools is paramount even if the situation of universities becomes more equal. 2. The system is complex and heterogeneous. The teaching of entrepreneurship in France should be constructed on three pillars namely, awareness, training and coaching. Unfortunately, the programmes set up are mainly on raising awareness.
82
Entrepreneurial education in France
Despite the progress already achieved in recent years, especially by the universities, the teaching of entrepreneurship in France is still finding its way and its continuity. Also, much remains to be done. Annex 1. The Cré@tude team Role
Location* Institution
Capacity
Project Manager Leading partner Leading partner Leading partner Leading partner Leading partner Leading partner Leading partner Contact Partner Contact Partner Contact Partner Contact Partner Contact Partner Contact Partner Contact Partner Contact Partner Contact Partner
06 83 06 06 83 83 and 06 06 83 06 83 83 06 83 06 83 06 83
Contact Partner
06
Sophia Business Angels
Contact Partner
06
Antipolis Innovation Campus
Contact Partner
PACA
INPI
Contact Partner
PACA
PACA entreprendre
University University Business School Business School Incubator Incubator Association Association Employer Union Employer Union Chamber of Commerce Trades house Trades house Employer Union Employer Union Association Incubator Network of Business angels Centre for Enterprise and Innovation Research National Institute of Industrial Property Association
*
Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis Université du Sud Toulon Var SKEMA EDHEC Incubateur PACA EST Telecom ParisTech Telecom Valley Toulon Var Technologie Union pour l'Entreprise 06 Union Patronale du Var CCI Var Chambre des Métiers 06 Chambre des métiers du var CJDE 06 CJDE83 UNAPL 06 Interface 83
The number 83 indicates the Department of the Var and the number 06 indicates the Department of the Alpes Maritimes. Var and Alpes Maritimes together are usually called the French Riviera.
7. References Aumont B., Mesnier P.M., 1995. L’acte d’apprendre. Presses universitaires de France, Paris. Bares F., 2004. Que dire de l’accompagnement en phase de démarrage? La perception de cinq créateurs d’entreprise technologique à fort potentiel de croissance, 3ème Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Lyon, mars, 22 p. Bouchard V., 2009. Entrepreneuriat. Innovation et Croissance: entreprendre dans l’entreprise. Dunod, Paris. Bouchard V., Bos C., 2006. Dispositifs intrapreneuriaux et créativité organisationnelle: Une conception tronquée? Revue Française de Gestion, 161. Brockhaus R.H., 2001. Foreword. In: R.H Brockhaus, G.E Hills, H. Klandt, H.P. Welsch, (eds.), Entrepreneurship Education: A global view. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot.
83
Olivier Hueber Cantillon R., 1997. Essai sur la nature du commerce en général. I.N.E.D., Paris. Chia R., 1996. Teaching Paradigm Shifting in Management Education: University Business Schools and the Entrepreneurial Imagination. Journal of Management Studies 33, 4: 409–428. Colot O., Comblé K., Ladhari J., 2007. Influence des facteurs socio-économiques et culturels sur l’entrepreneuriat. Documents d’économie et de gestion-UMH, 3. Degeorge J.-M., Fayolle A., 2004. Etudiants et entrepreneuriat: pourquoi se former. Humanisme et entreprendre, octobre, 16 p. Fayolle A., 2000. L’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat dans le système éducatif supérieur français: un regard sur la situation actuelle. Gestion, p. 77–95. Fayolle A., 2004. Entrepreneuriat: apprendre à entreprendre. Dunod, Paris. Fayolle A., 2010. Handbook Of Research In Entrepreneurship Education. Vol. 3, Edward Elgar ed. Fendt J., Bureau S., Paris T., 2008. Can Entrepreneurship Be Taught? The Case of the French Grandes Ecoles. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the European Academy of Management (EURAM), 2008, May 14–16, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Guichard J., Huteau M., 2001. Psychologie de l’orientation. Dunod, Paris. Hernandez E.M., 2006. Les trois dimensions de la décision d’entreprendre. Revue française de gestion 168–169: 337–357. Klapper R., 2004. Government goals and entrepreneurship education – an investigation at a Grande Ecole in France. Education+Training 46, 3: 127–137. Leicht C.M., Harrison R.T., 1999. A process model for entrepreneurship education and development. Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 5(4): 40–46. Moreau R., Raveleau G., 2006. Les trajectoires de l’intention entrepreneuriales. Revue Internationale PME 19, 2: 101–131. Presses de l’Université du Quebec. Neunreuther B., 1979. Peut on enseigner l’attitude entrepreneuriale? Enseignement et Gestion, nouvelle série 11: 7–13. Surlemont B., Kearney P., 2009. Pédagogie et esprit d’entreprendre. De Boeck ed., Bruxelles.
Author’s address:
Olivier Hueber, PhD University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, GREDEG-CNRS, France e-mail: olivier.hueber@ unice.fr
An assessment of entrepreneurship education. The case of Lithuania Reda Nausedaite, Asta Pundziene
Summary: This chapter aims to review and analyse the case of Lithuania regarding entrepreneurship education and training. Entrepreneurship education and training in Lithuania is understood to be a part of the business management and administration field that comprises on average 11% of all Higher Education (university as well as non-university) programmes. In 2010 business management and administration education and training, including entrepreneurship, is celebrating its 20th anniversary since Lithuania gained its independence. In 1990 the first Lithuanian enterprises were registered and started their operations. It is not surprising that business management and administration, including entrepreneurship, followed the developments of the young market economy as well as the needs of enterprises. In 20 years much has been accomplished, however entrepreneurship education and training as an independent discipline only recently gained the attention of educationalists, politicians, managements, faculties and researchers. Entrepreneurship training is much more developed than entrepreneurship education. Only a few Universities have introduced a full programme on entrepreneurship. In most other cases elective courses are available. Keywords: entrepreneurship education and training, case, Lithuanian JEL codes: I 23, L 26, M 13
1. Introduction Since 2005 much active research has been conducted regarding the state of the art in Entrepreneurship Education as well as SME development sectors. More active involvement in the development of Entrepreneurship education began with European Union (EU) funds as well as adopting EU regulations. The development of entrepreneurship is a main priority of the European Union. A core platform of the European Commission’s SME policy is dedicated towards promoting entrepreneurship, primarily through the Small Business Act for Europe and the European Entrepreneurship Observatory. This is also seen in related priorities, such as entrepreneurship in education and training and the promotion of female
85
Reda Nausedaite, Asta Pundziene
entrepreneurship. A key element of entrepreneurship policy is found in education. The EC has developed initiatives at the secondary and tertiary levels for both academic and vocational education. The Oslo Agenda for Entrepreneurship Education in Europe sets out many of the core policies, which are in the process of being updated in the follow-up to the Lisbon Agenda, Europe 2020 (Ammerman, 2010). A key weakness identified in the European Commission’s Communication on “Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning” includes the need for better training of teachers and trainers. Two of the eight main recommendations in the Communication involve improving the capacity of trainers, administrators and schools, as seen below: –– National and regional authorities should establish cooperation between different departments, leading to the development of a strategy covering all stages of education; –– Curricula for schools at all levels should explicitly include entrepreneurship as an objective of education; –– Schools should be given practical support and incentives to encourage take-up of entrepreneurship programmes; –– Special attention should be given to training teachers and to raising the awareness of heads of schools; –– Cooperation between educational establishments and the local community, especially businesses, should be encouraged; –– The use of student mini-companies at school should be further promoted; –– Higher education institutions should integrate entrepreneurship across different courses, notably within scientific and technical studies; –– Public authorities’ support is especially needed to provide high-level training for teachers and to develop networks that can share good practice. As said by Soren Hougaard – “The point of departure is that entrepreneurship can be learnt, that it consists of coherent processes and is executed in equal interaction between a numbers of different competencies.” That means that entrepreneurship education and training for faculties, entrepreneurs and youth is one of the main issues in fostering entrepreneurship within a country. We can say that entrepreneurship constitutes the financial and managerial driving force within the framework of which innovation will take place (Hougaard S., 2004). Schumpeter distinguishes between invention, which is a scientific activity not necessarily motivated by economic advancement, and innovation. The inventor develops techniques which the innovator seeks to exploit for the creation of wealth. Innovation involves decisions of judgment on whether to commit scarce resources for application to an invention (Cason, 2003). Today, researchers are somewhat expected to tread a line between invention and innovation and, moreover, to contribute to the development of entrepreneurial knowledge and skills as well as inspire students and businessman. The practice of entrepreneurship traditionally covers a number of topics (Welsch , 2004): –– Family businesses; 86
An assessment of entrepreneurship education. The case of Lithuania
–– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– ––
Rural entrepreneurship; Franchising entrepreneurship in the arts; Serial entrepreneurship; Ethnic entrepreneurship; Lifestyle entrepreneurship; Technology and entrepreneurship; Women in entrepreneurship; Network marketing; Social entrepreneurship; Strategic collaboration. The problem is particularly acute in the field of higher education where many university professors and trainers have little direct experience in managing a company. This results in an often theoretical approach to business education and management training which does not always correspond to the expectations and existing competencies of the students, who are often active managers and entrepreneurs. This chapter aims to give an overview of state of the art entrepreneurship education and training in the Lithuanian higher education sector. The objectives of the chapter are to review the educational provisions in Lithuania; analyse the characteristics of entrepreneurship education courses and programmes; describe entrepreneurship education and the science-industry link; provide an illustration of the situation with a case study and offer some conclusions. It is hoped that after reading the chapter the reader will have an explicit understanding of state of the art Entrepreneurship education and training development in Lithuania.
2. Overview of the educational provisions in Lithuania Lithuania is among the group of Moderate innovators compared to the other 27 European Union Member States, with an innovation performance well below average; however, its relative strengths, compared to the country’s average performance, are in linkages and entrepreneurship, human resources, plus finance and support, which provide great potential for an improvement in HEIs innovation performance in the field of entrepreneurship education (EIS, 2009). Lithuania has a two-tier higher education system – university and non-university studies. University studies are organized into three levels: first cycle, undergraduate (Bachelor’s); second cycle, graduate (Master’s or specialized professional studies); third cycle, post-graduate (residency, doctoral or postgraduate studies). University studies can be integrated if the first and second cycles are combined. Non-university studies are one cycle (undergraduate) professional studies intended for the preparation (training) of students for professional activity. Lithuania has a well-developed system of universities and colleges. Its scientific research potential is concentrated in 28 public establishments of higher education (15 universities and 13 colleges), 18 private higher education establishments (8 universities and 10 colleges), 17 state research institutes, 18
87
Reda Nausedaite, Asta Pundziene
Fig. 1. Innovation performance score for Lithuania Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, 2009.
university research institutes and 8 state research establishments. The largest number of researchers (66%) falls in the higher education sector, with the public sector accounting for 29%, and business for 5%. The majority of students (88%) study in public institutions. For the academic year of 2009–2010 there were 78% of undergraduate students in public and priTable 1. Overview of HEIs in Lithuania based on the number of registered students in 2009/2010 Type of HEI Universities Public Private Colleges Public Private Total
Number of HEIs
Students
Per cent
23 15 8 23 13 10 46
144 301 136 274 8 027 56 704 41 045 15 659 201 005
72 68 4 28 20 8 100
Source: Lithuanian Department of Statistics, 2010.
88
An assessment of entrepreneurship education. The case of Lithuania
vate universities. One in two students who complete a bachelor’s degree continue their studies in the graduate programme. Currently, Master’s degree students number 27 thousand students, with 2.5 thousand students doing PhDs. Most students are studying management and business administration. For the academic year of 2009–2010 the number of management and business administration courses accounted for nearly half (46%) of all college students and 21% of university students. Other popular fields of study are pedagogy, law and the engineering professions. Social science studies are becoming more popular with economics students increasing by 14%, sociology 12%, and political science 10%. Entrepreneurship was not previously part of the curricula in higher education institutions in Lithuania and only significantly began to enter the curriculum in the last ten years. This is in line with other trends, particularly the growth of the venture capital industry for financing innovative, growth-oriented companies. In Lithuania entrepreneurship education was frequently considered to be part of company personnel training programmes which concentrate on functional management skills for businesses, rather than skills for building and nurturing innovation driven companies. While entrepreneurship is still not fully accepted as an academic discipline in Lithuania, many business and technology schools have started to create a niche in this area. These efforts are fragmentary and regularly driven by external actors instead of by the education system itself. However, private institutions like the ISM University of Management and Economics have altered the thinking on developing an entrepreneurial spirit, including changing the fundamentals of how a university operates and its role in society.
3. Characteristics of entrepreneurship education courses and programmes Much of the entrepreneurship education in Lithuania is being pursued on a rather ad-hoc basis. Also, the overall teaching of entrepreneurship in higher education is relatively weak. While some entrepreneurship teaching courses can be observed that are worth mentioning, even the business studies curricula often lack training on how to start one’s own business and acquire relevant skills. The Lithuanian “product portfolio” of higher education in entrepreneurship can be defined through the following categories: 1. Undergraduate level: offered mainly as modules in business programmes. 2. Post-Graduate programmes: which in turn can be divided into the following categories: –– Master’s Courses: enabling students and practitioners to operate effectively at a high level of executive responsibility in creating and managing new businesses; –– PhD Programs: providing skills and competencies for academic research in entrepreneurship, and which are offered in particular by private Lithuanian universities;
89
Reda Nausedaite, Asta Pundziene
–– Professional Courses in Entrepreneurship: they aim to support business start-ups and to develop leadership skills. Professional courses are extremely intensive. In Lithuania entrepreneurship education programmes are offered at the master and doctoral levels. Programmes at both levels in the area of business studies have been launched by private universities (the ISM University of Management and Economics, plus the University of Mykolas Romeris). Out of 778 Master level programmes existing at university level, only one course is fully dedicated to the management of innovation and entrepreneurship at the University of Mykolas Romeris. Likewise the PhD programme specialising in entrepreneurship offered by the ISM University of Management and Economics. Modules of entrepreneurship education in Lithuania have mainly been addressed to business and engineering students. However, Lithuanian HEIs are choosing to provide an interdisciplinary entrepreneurship education rather than single programmes, as reflection-oriented learning requires knowledge from a wide variety of disciplines. An interdisciplinary approach would in this respect provide students with a broad knowledge base on which to reflect and learn from their experiences. An essential objective of the programme is therefore to offer a variety of subjects that are relevant to the process of recognizing and exploiting new business opportunities; such as leadership, creativity, negotiation, product development, project management, social networking, tolerance for ambiguity etc. The education institution fulfils these objectives by constructing the programme around a diverse team consisting of lecturers from various disciplines. The second reason for choosing an interdisciplinary entrepreneurship education is its activity-oriented methodology, in the sense that entrepreneurship is something that is stimulated by a variety of experiences. The diversity of lecturers and students having different backgrounds and perspectives will create a motivating environment in which students are encouraged to experiment and learn new ways of doing things. An interdisciplinary approach better inspires students towards creativity and innovation by giving them insights across traditional disciplinary boundaries. Lithuanian private universities primary focus is the belief that entrepreneurship cannot be taught through traditional forms of instruction alone, but has to be assimilated and reinforced through real experiences. The ISM University of Management and Economics offers entrepreneurship modules at bachelor and master levels, which, with its strong international outlook, makes it unique in comparison to other entrepreneurship programmes in Lithuania. The knowledge exchange between different countries and cultures plays an important role in an environment where entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly global. The ISM University of Management and Economics exemplifies the international character of the programme which is reflected in the particular course components. One element worthy of note is the non-traditional implementation of entrepreneurial activities in most courses, and not just having entrepreneurship as an optional subject. Having realised that many graduates start their own business it is considered important to educate all the students in the basic elements of 90
An assessment of entrepreneurship education. The case of Lithuania
starting up a company. An additional point of integrating entrepreneurial activities in courses is the ambition to foster the students’ entrepreneurial attitudes, to advance entrepreneurial mindsets which the students can take advantage of in their future careers – not only as entrepreneurs, but also in paid jobs both in the private and the public sector. Entrepreneurship education is important in all disciplines. However, the majority of entrepreneurship modules are offered in business schools in Lithuania. As a result, entrepreneurship education is limited across campuses – particularly in the technology and science departments, where many innovative ideas and companies originate. One more important characteristic of entrepreneurship education in Lithuania is teaching methodologies, such as case studies and other interactive pedagogies, which are under-utilised; as is the inclusion of business people and entrepreneurs in the classroom. By contrast private universities, particularly the ISM University of Management and Economics, already have placed greater emphasis on experiential and activity learning. ISM University of Management and Economics professors often have experience working with start-ups. Entrepreneurs, many of them alumni of the university, are brought into the classroom both to confer with the students as well as to teach courses. These courses are constructed to be as experiential as possible, integrating real-life cases, projects, business plans etc. Besides, they provide role models for students considering an entrepreneurial career path. This is a vital element for generating entrepreneurial drive. In Lithuania, most universities are public and, in many cases, they posses a shortage of experience and motivation to commence any proactive outreach to the private sector. Government-funded universities are likely to contain very traditional structures, making it complicated to incorporate new approaches. Additionally, public universities are more nationally focused than internationally minded by nature of their means of funding. Hence, private universities are leveraging quicker the lacking reforms than public institutions, and rapidly gearing the curriculum content towards developing the problem-solving skills which are greatly needed in today’s knowledge-based society, to make their institutions more innovative and entrepreneurial.
4. Entrepreneurship education and the scienceindustry link Science and technology parks are regarded as functional mechanisms to support technology transfers between HEIs and industry (and vice versa), promote the level of innovation, and better tie together research and development results. Through their strong focus on networking science parks create new jobs and promote business start-ups, and have proved to be a useful tool for engendering a more entrepreneurial and innovation-oriented culture; particularly when located in proximity to higher education and research institutions. In Lithuania an idea is currently being implemented for 5 integrated scientific HEIs and business centres, the so-called science valleys (“Sunrise Valley”).
91
Reda Nausedaite, Asta Pundziene
They are to function as multifaceted infrastructure that will build and re-enforce the potential of regionally concentrated, sustainable research and innovation networks with long-term commitments by universities, public institutions and the private sector. 6 out of 15 centres of excellence and 5 out of 17 groups of high-level scientists identified by the Centre for Quality Assessment of Studies (SQAS) in Lithuania are operating in the Sunrise Technology Valley. The intense collaboration that is in progress between Lithuanian scientists and local and foreign companies is expected to create and develop new technologies and products, fostering entrepreneurship and innovation in various business areas (Table 2). Sunrise Valley is being developed as part of the broader strategic plans of two universities: the University of Vilnius and the Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. It is related to the development of an effective setting for innovation and business based on a dynamic partnership between science and HEIs, high technology enterprises and local authorities, for the purpose of creating high added value products and services competitive on world markets. Science valley is assumed to be distinguished not only by its proximity to the largest Lithuanian universities, but also by the scope of professional services which are to be provided by the Sunrise School of Entrepreneurship, the Technology Transfer Centre, and partners coming from the public and private sectors. The most important and relevant issues are related to technology transfers, intellectual property management, the establishment and development of consulting companies as well as applied research result commercialisation. The scientific setting is linked to the development of services related to business support (business incubators, technology demonstrations and testing centres fostering entrepreneurship and innovation). Consequently, the Valley development programme approved by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania has established special laboratories for experimental work, where it organises courses for scientists and students, provides conditions for experimental activities, and takes part in the training of new employees and the improvement of new products. It is an outstanding illustration of successful cooperation between the business and academic community based on the use of knowledge accumulated by each party. Table 2. Distribution of enterprises situated in technology parks by business activity Type of business activity Information and telecommunications technologies Energy and electronics Biotechnologies Engineering technologies, chemistry and food industry Environment protection technologies Medicine and pharmacy Financial, business and other consulting services Other fields of activities Source: Lithuanian Department of Statistics, 2010.
92
Per cent 34 11 1 12 5 3 23 23
An assessment of entrepreneurship education. The case of Lithuania
The established HEI and industry link (“Sunrise valley”) is noted for its leading concentration in the Baltic States of science and education (approximately 20 thousand students, scientists, and researchers), which will intensify once most of the faculties and scientific research institutes of Vilnius University and Vilnius Gediminas Technical University are relocated, which currently are distributed in different locations around Vilnius. In order to ensure entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship development programmes have been set up and administered in partnership with the Sunrise Valley management, business associations, universities, and qualified partners from the United Kingdom (Kingston University, London). Future plans are for the development of a wider support structure that facilitates entrepreneurs to unite forces with those in publicly funded research in order to start and develop hi-tech ventures. It will work closely together with business angels, business mentors and business support providers to provide potential entrepreneurs with access to appropriate financial and advisory support. Scientific institutions develop activities which are in agreement with a country’s development priorities, oriented towards growth in the existing level of development in entrepreneurship education and networking with universities, both in the public and private sector. Although entrepreneurship courses and programmes are just climbing up the ladder of importance in the HE sector, science valley has positioned itself as the necessary solid foundation for the transfer of technologies, spin offs, the development of closer science and business relationships, as well as the development of industry’s abilities to apply scientific knowledge and technologies. It is expected that upon completion of the projected activities they will encourage the unlocking of the intellectual, administrative and financial potential of Lithuania so as to create the biggest park of applied scientific research and innovation in Lithuania.
5. ISM University of Management and Economics, a case study ISM University of Management and Economics was established in 1999 as the first privately owned Institution of management education in Lithuania. The main founders of ISM were the BI Norwegian School of Management, one of the largest business schools in Europe, and Innovation Norway. ISM currently offers an educational prospectus which is relatively wide and diverse, including Bachelor and Master of Science, Master’s in management studies, a Doctoral programme, and an Executive education. The educational prospectus offered by ISM has shown itself to represent an appropriate response to the expectations and needs of the stakeholders – students, business, and society. Studying at ISM, according to a survey carried out by the Ministry of Education and Science in Lithuania, ISM out numbers other Lithuanian Higher education institutions in terms of English based curricula. ISM is the only higher education institution in Lithuania, and one of the few in Central and Eastern Europe, that has been awarded the ECTS label for the second time. ISM is the only private university in
93
Reda Nausedaite, Asta Pundziene
Lithuania offering doctoral studies in management and administration. In 2007, ISM’s doctoral programme was ranked number one in Lithuania by the Science Council of Lithuania. ISM is both a successful entrepreneurial venture in itself and, as a survey of the students showed, a place where 50% of the students are entrepreneurs themselves or come from a business family. This is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. This fact on the one hand distinguishes ISM from other, mainly State, Universi-ties, but also creates special needs for the education and training content within ISM. As we can see in Figure 2, 13.74% of ISM students have their own part time business and 2.20% full time, which makes 16% in total in comparison
Fig. 2. Comparison of ISM and Vilnius University students by occupation
94
An assessment of entrepreneurship education. The case of Lithuania
to 1.71% for Vilnius University which, established in 1570, is the oldest and main classic University in Lithuania. Also, in general, the majority of ISM students gain employment in comparison to Vilnius University. Probably this is why the students have chosen to study Business management and administration or economics. As yet ISM does not have a full programme devoted to entrepreneurship, however the content of entrepreneurship is covered by a compulsory course on “Entrepreneurship” as well as one on “Innovation and social entrepreneurship” delivered in the third year at undergraduate level. Analysing the occupations of the students’ parents, it can also be seen that 47.49% of ISM students Vilnius University 68.38% come from families with businesses in comparison to 15.64% from Vilnius University. These results also
Fig. 3. Comparison of ISM and Vilnius University students by parents’ occupation
95
Reda Nausedaite, Asta Pundziene
Fig. 4. Urgent needs of Lithuanian students for Entrepreneurship education and training
support the general need for strengthening entrepreneurship education within the universities. A survey of Lithuanian students also clearly shows that specific programmes on entrepreneurship are needed. The experience of ISM shows that the other aspect of entrepreneurial development is direct and close contacts with businesses and entrepreneurs themselves. This could be developed and sustained through periods of internships, joint events as well as research. ISM is an active member of a number of business associations as well as collective bodies.
6. Conclusions The history of the Entrepreneurship education and training dates back to 1990, when Lithuania gained independence and its centrally planned economy started to develop into a market economy. This was the opening of new era for business development as well. In 1990 the first Lithuanian enterprise was registered to start operation. At the time there were no education or training possibilities that could competently support entrepreneurial development. The first initiatives in entrepreneurship training came with foreign funds; and the first funds came from Scandinavian bilateral cooperation, followed by PHARE and other EU funds that became eligible to Lithuanian in 1998. Support from the EU also made an impact on the focus of entrepreneurship education and training. The first investments were made to foster entrepreneurship among the youth, plus women and SMEs. In general, vocational education and training was first introduced through entrepreneurship modules in further education. A lot of training was geared towards
96
An assessment of entrepreneurship education. The case of Lithuania
youth, women entrepreneurs, plus owners and managers of SMEs. Less education and training was available for teacher training. This weakness was identified throughout the EU also in EC monitoring reports. The main break-though in entrepreneurship education as well as training at higher education and training levels came with the reform of higher education in 2006, when it was declared that Universities as well as other higher education institutions should adapt to the needs of the local economy as well as society. The funding of Universities as well as colleges was related to the students and their choices among one or more higher education institutions. Growing competition among the universities as well as the world wide economic recession made it necessary to think about the real needs of business as well as how to support entrepreneurship. Several actions were taken. Firstly universities introduced enterprise internships for a certain period as part of their higher education programme, business representatives became members of university and college governing boards, science and technology parks as well as business incubators were established at a national level, and universities begin to operate under the concept of new public management. However, the challenge of faculty training as well as programme development in entrepreneurship still remains. So far only a few universities have introduced a full programme for undergraduates. The need for such programmes is supported by the results from multiple surveys of both students and employers.
References [interaktyvus], [žiūrėta 2010-08-22]. Prieiga per internet: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter2/ dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=266311. Acworth E.B., 2008. University – industry engagement: The formation of the Knowledge Integration Community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Research Policy 37: 1241–1254. Carayol N., 2003. Objectives, agreements and matching in science–industry collaborations. Casson M., 2003. The entrepreneur: an economic theory. 2nd ed. MPG Books, Lincolnshire. Cogliser C.C., Brigham K., 2004. The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: does leadership have to be entrepreneurship’s ugly older stepsister? Leadership Quarterly 15, 6: 771–799. Entrepreneurship in Higher Education, Especially in non-Business Studies, 2008. Final Report of the Expert group. European Commission. European Innovation Scoreboard, 2009. Hougaard S. 2005. The business idea: the early stages of entrepreneurship. Springer, Heidelberg. Kuratko F., Audretsch D.B., 2009. Strategic entrepreneurship: exploring different perspectives of an emerging concept. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33, 1: 1–17 Kvedaravičius J., Dagytė I., 2007. Mokslo ir verslo organizacijų bendradarbiavimas: vadybos. Lietuvos MTEP finansavimo būklės analizė, 2008. Mokslo ir studijų stebėsenos ir analizės centras (MOSTA). Lithuania Department of Statistics, 2010 [accessed 2010-08-18]. Internet access: http:// www.stat.gov.lt/ Nacionalinė Lisabonos strategijos įgyvendinimo programa, 2005. Valstybės žinios 139– 5019.
97
Reda Nausedaite, Asta Pundziene Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Research Policy 32: 887–908. Prieiga per Science Direct. Survey of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe, 2008. NIRAS Consultants, FORA, European Commission. Thompson J.L., 1999. A strategic perspective of entrepreneurship. International journal of entrepreneurial behaviour & research 5(6): 279–296. Welsch P.H., 2004. Entrepreneurship: the way ahead. Routledge, New York. Mayrhofer W., 2010. How to motivate people during the times of turbulence. Working paper. Lietuvos Respublikos ūkio ministerija, 2005. Atskirų tikslinių grupių (jaunimo, moterų) verslumo ugdymo būdų analizė. Report.
Authors’ address:
Reda Nausedaite Asta Pundziene, PhD ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania e-mails: reda.nausedaite@ism. lt,
[email protected]
Teaching entrepreneurship – an example from the Poznan University of Economics Aleksandra Gaweł, Barbara Jankowska
Summary: The main aim of this chapter is to describe the authors’ experiences with the study specialisation ‘Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises’, conducted at the Poznań University of Economics, and to analyse the opinions of graduates about this particular specialisation as well as the consequences for teaching entrepreneurship in general. From these experiences and the graduates’ opinions, some general hints and tips on teaching entrepreneurship are expected to be formulated. Keywords: entrepreneurship, human capital JEL codes: L 26, J 24
1. Introduction A great deal of effort is being put into the education of nascent entrepreneurs in order to foster entrepreneurship. At the same time, a discussion is being conducted not only about the most suitable methods for teaching entrepreneurs, but also about the general viability of entrepreneurial education. The main issue of this discussion is, can entrepreneurship be taught or is it an inborn quality? An increasing number of courses in entrepreneurial education are not related to the results of research showing the methods and effectiveness of such education (Heinonen, 2007). The importance of this discussion is the reason for undertaking the topic in this chapter. The main aims of this chapter are to describe the authors’ experiences with the specialisation study course “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises”, conducted at the Poznań University of Economics, and to analyse the opinions of graduates about this particular specialisation as well as the possibilities for teaching entrepreneurship in general. Thanks to these experiences and
99
Aleksandra Gaweł, Barbara Jankowska
the graduate’s opinions, some general hints and tips for teaching entrepreneurship are expected to be formulated.
2. The “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation at the Poznań University of Economics in Poland – general reflections Despite the discussion about the possibilities of teaching entrepreneurship, the results of research suggest the level of education is one of the factors influencing the start-up rate, which is treated as one of the measurements of entrepreneurship (Naudé et al., 2008; Delmar and Davidsson, 2000). What is more, according to the idea of the Triple Helix, university-industry-government relations are the basis for developing innovation as one of the central understandings of entrepreneurship (Etzkowitz and Dzisah, 2008; Papagiannidis et al., 2009). This very popular and often used concept means that world of business and the world of universities are two parts of the triple helix, and the necessity for their collaboration is unquestionable. The above-mentioned arguments were the reasons for undertaking this teaching initiative in support of entrepreneurship. At the Poznań University of Economics in Poland, in the Faculty of Management, a study specialisation called “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises”, dedicated to entrepreneurship, was instituted. The main aim of this specialisation was to prepare students for creating and managing their own enterprises. This specialisation was added to the programme of studies for the academic year 2003/2004 in the integrated Master’s Degree programme. There are 4 groups of students: 1. Entrepreneurs or owners of nascent enterprises: this group of students comprises people who in the future intend to start and run their own enterprises. 2. Workers in family businesses: this group of students comprises people who come from families which run their own businesses, and who intend to work in the family business and eventually take over its management. 3. Assistants or managers in medium size enterprises: this group of students will provide support for the owners of small and medium enterprises in the development of their firms. The growth of an enterprise in the SME sector necessitates employing managers or assistants, but the scale of operation does not yet require creating complex organisational structures. 4. Employees in national and international organizations supporting the development of small and medium enterprises. The support of entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly important as a significant element in the economic policy of a region or a country as well as in the European Union. As a result of this, the number of institutions which deal with the promotion and development of entrepreneurship is rising, and consequently the number of people employed in this area of economic policy increases as well. The last group 100
Teaching entrepreneurship – an example from the Poznan University of Economics
of students to whom the specialisation is aimed are those people who after graduating intend to seek employment in such institutions; for example in business incubators, agencies for enterprise development, science and technology parks, business clusters or seed funds. These target groups of students imply that all 3 domains of entrepreneurship education; learning to understand entrepreneurship, learning to become entrepreneurial and learning to become an entrepreneur (Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006); are the subject of educational interest. The first two groups of students need to learn to become entrepreneurs, the third group to become entrepreneurial, and the last one to understand entrepreneurship. The vast majority of the students in this specialisation had several features of character in common. Primarily, they came across as independent and creative people with a broad rather than specialised knowledge. Therefore, their personality features matched those which in the literature are usually ascribed to entrepreneurs (e.g. Korunka et al., 2003). The formulation of the concept behind the “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation was accompanied by a general discussion on the possibilities of entrepreneurship education. It is commonly known that in order to start and run a business it is necessary to invest the financial and human capital of the entrepreneur (e.g. Evans and Jovanovic, 1989). The human capital of a potential entrepreneur consists of the human capital specific to the given enterprise, the human capital specific to the industry and the human capital specific to the individual. University education is one of the elements of the human capital specific to the individual, together with such elements as, among others, general managerial experience, entrepreneurial experience, professional training, age, and household income (Dakhli and de Clercq, 2004). The human capital of the entrepreneur plays a particularly important role when the idea for a new enterprise is being formed, which is one of the stages of new enterprise creation, as the ideas and intentions of entrepreneurs form the initial strategy of new organisations and are a factor in their development (Bird, 1988). Human capital is a factor which not only determines the creation and survival of enterprises on the market (Cressy, 1996), but it also influences the structure of the financial capital used and the level of profit (Bates, 1990). It is sometimes thought that human capital has a considerably greater influence on new firm creation than capital restraints (Uusitalo, 2001). Moreover, according to some views, higher education is one of the factors which significantly affect people’s entrepreneurial innovation (Koellinger, 2008) as it increases their ability to start and run enterprises capable of achieving a permanent competitive advantage. On the other hand, during the discussions on the concept behind the “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation, it was also indicated that the significance of education as an element of general human capital is different in relation to professionals and entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs obtain knowledge mostly through practical activities (learning by doing), and professionals through formal education (Iyigun and Owen, 1998). Research findings were quoted which showed that a higher level of education decreases the prob
101
Aleksandra Gaweł, Barbara Jankowska
ability of starting a business (Johansson, 2000) as a better education elevates professional skills and ensures a better position in the job market. The above arguments indicate that some caution is necessary when considering the possibility of developing entrepreneurship through academic education. Eventually, however, it was agreed that although university education cannot in itself generate many elements of the human capital of an entrepreneur, providing a solid knowledge of the business aspects of running a company may increase the probability of the graduates of this specialisation achieving success in the market. The principal aim of the studies in the “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation was defined as the substantive preparation of the students for running their own business enterprise in all aspects of its operation. It was assumed that in order to achieve this principal aim the following specific educational aims have to be realised: –– Acquiring the ability to observe and assess the market opportunities necessary for starting and running a business; –– Learning about the particular situation of small and medium enterprises in the market, including family firms; –– Acquiring the knowledge of a broad range of issues relating to the creation and running of an enterprise. Following the idea of entrepreneurship as opportunity recognition, opportunity-centred rather than curriculum-based learning was introduced. Students were expected to learn to become more aware of existing opportunities and able to create new ones (Rea, 2007, 8–9). This means that students need not only knowledge, but also new ways of thinking, skills or modes of behaviour (Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006). Also, exercises in creativity should be introduced to raise the entrepreneurial intentions of students (Hamidi et at., 2008). In order for the principal and the specific aims to be achieved, the students must acquire particular knowledge and develop certain skills during the course of the studies. After a discussion it was agreed that in the course of this specialisation the students ought to acquire the following knowledge and skills: –– The knowledge necessary to start, run and develop an enterprise, which will allow the students to acquire the abilities of business planning as well as preparing and creating a strategy for business development; –– The essential information about the economic environment in which a business operates, which will enable the students to learn about financial institutions and institutions offering entrepreneurship support, as well as developing the ability to cooperate with such institutions; for example by preparing applications for European Union funding; –– The skills necessary to run and develop a business; particularly those connected with taking strategic decisions, leadership, noticing business opportunities and evaluating their profitability; the ability to operate a business in the European market, obtaining funding for the creation and development of small and medium enterprises, managing the employees in a small or medium enterprise, and conducting business negotiations. 102
Teaching entrepreneurship – an example from the Poznan University of Economics
Adopting the above assumptions meant that a detailed syllabus for the course offered to the students had to be constructed; and the methods of teaching which would be most effective, considering the nature of entrepreneurship, had to be specified. As the importance of entrepreneurial experience in the formation of human capital cannot be overestimated, it was also decided that meetings with active entrepreneurs as well as training practice in companies ought to be an integral part of the “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” course. As a result of the discussions and assumptions presented above, a programme of studies for the specialisation was constructed, which comprised three thematic groups of subjects. It has to be stressed that the programme was aimed at those students in the Faculty of Management at the Poznań University of Economics who during their obligatory course of studies became acquainted with the basic issues connected with business management. Now this knowledge was to be developed and expanded to include the information and skills necessary for a founder and owner of a small enterprise. The first thematic group of subjects in the “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation were subjects which introduced the students to issues connected with the creation and operation of an enterprise, such as for example: –– Entrepreneurship: a course to present and discuss the definition and characteristics of entrepreneurship with regard to the characteristics of the entrepreneur and the entrepreneurial process. The course also covers the kinds and forms of entrepreneurship, the creation of new companies, the issues connected with the functioning of family firms, as well as the connections between entrepreneurship and economic, social and cultural development; –– Small and Medium Enterprises: a series of lectures to present the definitions, typology and characteristics of small and medium enterprises, as well as discussing the strong and weak points of their activity, plus their specific forms of activity in relation to the economic area in which the enterprise operates; –– Business game: a simulation game employing IT tools in which the students are divided into groups and create virtual companies, invest in their development, enter a market of their choice and compete against other players; –– Managerial economy: an analysis of the tools for assisting entrepreneurs in their economic decisions such as estimating and forecasting demand, estimating the function of production and production costs, pricing decisions, non-price competition, investment decisions, risk and uncertainty, as well as forecasting the consequences of business decisions. The second group of subjects offered to the students of the specialisation were courses connected with preparing for business ventures. The most important courses in this thematic group include the following: –– Innovation and creativity: a course covering the essence of innovation, its sources and the ways to encourage innovative processes in small and medium enterprises. It makes use of creativity techniques that are used to identify
103
Aleksandra Gaweł, Barbara Jankowska
–– ––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–– ––
business opportunities which can provide the trigger for starting a business venture; Methodology of enterprise creation: a course where the concept of a business model is developed, which is then used in the realisation of a business project; The finance of small and medium enterprises: a course dealing with issues connected with profitability analysis, the management of current assets in small and medium enterprises, cash flows, the time value of money, financial planning for the assessment of investment efficiency, risk analysis, the cost of capital calculation, and the assessment of investment profitability; Business Plan: a subject including such issues as the principles of constructing a business plan, the elements of a business plan, assessing the effectiveness of a business plan, and preparing a hypothetical business plan for a new business venture; Entrepreneurial marketing: a course covering the issues relating to the evolution of the marketing concept, small and medium enterprises in the market environment, the methods of environment analysis, the marketing unit, and creative marketing (co-creation); Foreign markets: a series of lectures dealing with issues connected with the activities of a business enterprise in foreign markets, such as an analysis of foreign markets including the characteristic features of the markets in particular countries, the risks involved in operating in those markets, the financial aspects of foreign operations, as well as the cultural and institutional differences involved; Legal aspects: a course dealing with the legal issues connected with starting a business enterprise, the choice and change of its legal status, and taking over a family business. It explores the obligations imposed on small and medium enterprises by labour laws, as well as their legal liabilities towards economic entities, state administration institutions, tax offices etc.; Negotiations: a course presenting the process of negotiations, the methods of conflict resolution, as well as negotiation strategies and tactics. It also discusses the possibilities of applying different negotiation methods in various social, commercial and interpersonal situations; Human Resource Management in SMEs: a series of lectures focusing on presenting the nature of personnel management in small and medium enterprises, as well as the principles of constructing a personnel strategy; including job descriptions, employee profiles, recruitment procedures, training schemes, motivation methods, staff appraisals and the remuneration system; E-business: a course dealing with the ways in which the Internet can be utilised by small and medium enterprises in various aspects of their operation; Financial institutions and business enterprises: a series of lectures providing information about the various products and services offered to small and medium enterprises by such financial institutions as banks, insurance companies and capital market institutions. It presents the methods for financing current and investment activities through operating and investment loans, leasing,
104
Teaching entrepreneurship – an example from the Poznan University of Economics
factoring, forfeiting, letters of credit, as well as European Union programmes for SME support. The last group of subjects is connected with training practices in companies, which includes visits to enterprises during the academic year and training in enterprises during holidays. Moreover, some of the students have the opportunity to participate in workshops, prepared and conducted by active entrepreneurs, which conclude with a competition for the best business plan. It is a very important part of the specialisation programme because the results of many research projects suggest that entrepreneurial education should provide students with more learning opportunities by and in enterprises and allow students to study real-life cases (Taatila, 2010). As far as the forms of education were concerned, it was decided that the most effective methods will be those that most closely combine formal university education with learning-by-doing. Most of successful programmes in entrepreneurial education have strong “learning-by-doing” elements, based on out-of-classroom activities, e.g. internships with start-ups, creating and running small ventures (Tan and Ng, 2006). Examples of the pedagogical and didactic methods using in teaching entrepreneurship in European universities show that job projects, group work, coaching, business plan competitions, and panel debates are often introduced into entrepreneurial higher education courses (Blenker, Dreisler, Kjeldsen, 2006, p. 13). A problem-based learning approach is also recommended as an effective pedagogical approach (Tan and Ng, 2006). Based on these good practices, some courses at Poznań University of Economics use experimental methods (e.g. business games), some courses include work on student projects (e.g. entrepreneurship and human resource management), and others make use of simulations (e.g. the finance of small and medium enterprises or a business plan). The “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation, which was offered to full-time students at the Faculty of Management, attracted a moderate number of students. In the years 2004–2008, out of approximately 250 students who chose a specialisation every year, 25 people on average (10%) enrolled for this specialisation. There are several reasons for this situation. One being that with about 10 student groups in the Faculty of Management there are about 13 specialisations on offer, though the numbers may vary depending on the year. This means that there are more specialisations than there are student groups, and the various specialisations compete vary hard in order to attract students. The graduates from the Faculty of Management at the University of Economics in Poznań enjoy an extremely advantageous position on the job market and are able to find employment which will provide them with very high earnings, prestige and development prospects. For this reason, the graduates usually prefer to become hired employees rather than start their own business as the job market offers them more attractive working conditions than those that they would be able to generate in their own firms.
105
Aleksandra Gaweł, Barbara Jankowska
Also, it has to borne in mind that the students acquire a great deal of knowledge relating to the starting and running of a business during the obligatory courses, which the students have to attend regardless of their final specialisation. Finally, yet another reason for the relatively low level of popularity for the “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation may be an incorrectly designed programme for the specialisation or the adopted methods of teaching. At present, discussions are taking place and work has been undertaken to revise the current programme of studies in the specialisation on the basis of feedback from its graduates. Several interesting problems surfaced in the course of conducting the specialisation. The specialisation was addressed to people who want to run their own business or take over a family business, and the students declared such intentions at the beginning of the course. However, only a relatively small number of students set up in business within 2 or 3 years of graduation. They gave two reasons for this. The first reason is a lack of the necessary financial means to start their own enterprise; the second reason is a lack of professional experience or a business network. The number of graduates from the specialisation who have started their own business begins to rise about 3 years after graduation. Hence it can be assumed that for many of them working for about three years as hired employees is essential in order to acquire both business experience and financial capital. Three years is approximately the duration of the specialisation programme. Therefore, these observations provide additional support for the view that entrepreneurs acquire knowledge predominantly through learning-by-doing rather than through formal education.
3. Graduate’s opinions about the “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation Between April and June 2010 a short questionnaire study was conducted among the graduates of the “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation. The aim of the study was to identify which changes needed to be introduced into the programme of the specialisation in order to better prepare the students for running their own enterprises and to more fully develop their entrepreneurial attitudes. The study was based on a questionnaire which contained 14 closed questions as well as a demographic part with questions about the respondent’s age and gender. For the majority of the questions a five-level Likert ordinal scale was used, where 1 meant strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – undecided, 4 – agree, and 5 – strongly agree. The data obtained by means of the questionnaire were then analysed in MS Excel, and due to the qualitative nature of the study and the small study sample, descriptive statistical measurements were employed. The choice of respondents for the study was deliberate and based on the snowball technique: the study being aimed at graduates of the “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation. Altogether, 18 people aged be-
106
Teaching entrepreneurship – an example from the Poznan University of Economics
tween 24 and 27 completed the questionnaires. The majority of the respondents were male (12 out of 18). The results of the study show that the people who decided to study the specialisation in question were generally people who had a positive attitude towards running their own business. Over half of the respondents (10 people) were planning to start a business enterprise even before they enrolled for the specialisation (the average for this category of answer was 4.17). In these cases, choosing the specialisation was a way of realising their vision of their future professional lives, which were crystallised even before these respondents embarked on an education in entrepreneurship. Therefore, for this group of students, studying in the “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation was not the first stimulus to becoming entrepreneurs, but rather a consequence of their own ideas for their professional careers. Undertaking studies which concentrated on entrepreneurship was not the result of an entrepreneurial tradition in families. When starting these studies, the respondents did not assume that in the future they were going to take over the existing family business, which most probably indicates that none of their close family members owned a business enterprise. During the study, 5 out of the 18 graduates declared that they were currently running their own business. All of these respondents were men. Four of them decided to set up in business within a year of graduating, and one of them started his entrepreneurial activity even before graduation. One of the respondents indicated a period of 2 to 3 years from graduation to ‘assuming the role of an entrepreneur.’ This may mean that the graduates generally decide to start a business within 3 years of completing their university education. Out of the five business ventures set up by the graduates of the specialisation, only two employ staff. Considering the number of employees, these firms belong to the ‘micro’ category. The remaining three cases are people who have registered as private enterprises. As far as the business profiles of established enterprises is concerned, the respondents listed business advice, training and brokerage; running a company dealing with gardening, vegetable production, cereal, seed and forage wholesaling; as well as the production of radiators and central heating boilers. According to above-mentioned numbers, the level of those undertaking entrepreneurial activity is not very high among graduates of a specialisation dedicated to nascent entrepreneurs. However, entrepreneurship education does not simply lead to increased start-ups, it develops unique life-long learning skills as well (Jones, 2010). As the results obtained from the questionnaires show (Table 1), the main motive for undertaking entrepreneurial activity is the desire to earn a lot of money, achieve independence, be able to control one’s professional life and fulfil one’s dreams (22% of answers). One of the respondents indicated the satisfaction that running one’s own business provides. Those respondents who did not have their own firms and worked as hired employees pointed to the financial stability achieved through receiving a regular monthly salary, and to the possibility of acquiring diversified professional experience (33% of answers). It is worth
107
Aleksandra Gaweł, Barbara Jankowska
mentioning, however, that the people who were not yet self-employed expressed favourable opinions on owning a business and declared that they were going to start a business enterprise in the future (the average for this category of answer was 3.92) (Table 2). It is also interesting to look at the additional motives indicated by the respondents. They decided to work as hired employees due to a lack of ideas for their own business and a lack of funds, but also because they wanted to find out how a large corporation operates. The study conducted not only made it possible to assess the scale of entrepreneurship among the graduates of this entrepreneurship-focused specialisation, but it also provided valuable ideas and suggestions relating to the didactic process (Table 3), with the respondents being able to choose more than one answer. Out of the list of the different thematic groups, the most useful according to the respondents were the finance and accountancy of enterprises plus the functioning of financial institutions (78% of indications), market analysis (72%), as well Table 1. The motives for undertaking entrepreneurial activity Specification I like challenges I wanted to earn a lot of money I like independence It is more creative than hired employment It is more rewarding than hired employment It gives me control over my professional life It has always been my dream It is not monotonous I like risk Other (please specify):
Percentage of indications 17 22 22 11 17 22 22 11 6 6
Source: Own compilation based on questionnaire results.
Table 2. The motives for undertaking work in another company Specification It is more predictable (regular working hours, stable career path, paid leave, child supplement) A wider range of career development possibilities I don't like risk Somebody else is responsible for running the company It is easier to acquire diversified professional experience – new skills It develops my social competences – the ability to cooperate with colleagues in a team / with the boss It gives the opportunity of meeting a greater number of people It allows me specialise in the areas of my competences Other (please specify): Source: Own compilation based on questionnaire results.
108
Percentage of indications 17 6 6 11 33 22 22 6 28
Teaching entrepreneurship – an example from the Poznan University of Economics
as the courses and subjects connected with the concept of running an enterprise which focused on the issues of innovation and creativity (61%). As far as the first thematic block of subjects is concerned, the respondents emphasised the immense importance of education in areas such as financial planning and bookkeeping, as well as the legal and tax-related issues connected with owning a business enterprise. These results stand in contrast to the quite common view that entrepreneurial education should have an influence on entrepreneurial skills, modes of behaviour (Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006) and intentions rather than only give knowledge. According to the results, students evaluated the knowledge-based courses highly (e.g. finance and accounting or market analysis) but it should be highlighted that these courses are more practically-oriented than scientific. As far as the form of conducting classes is concerned, the respondents expressed a strong preference for workshops and case studies (61% of indications), and the least popular form of classes were lectures (0%) (Table 4). Each respondent could choose more than one answer and additionally they could indicate other forms of conducting classes than those specified by the authors of the questionnaire. Among the things suggested by the respondents were meetings with active entrepreneurs as well as visits and training sessions in companies. These results are consistent with many others highlighting the role of real-life learning in en-
Table 3. The thematic blocks most useful from the perspective of running a business enterprise Specification The conception of an enterprise, innovation and creativity Business games Finance and accountancy of enterprises, financial institutions Entrepreneurial marketing Market analysis Human resources management Other (please specify)
Percentage of indications 61 44 78 50 72 44 28
Source: Own compilation based on questionnaire results.
Table 4. Preferred forms of classes Specification Classes Lectures Workshops Seminars Case studies Simulation games Other (please specify)
Percentage of indications 61 0 89 44 89 44 39
Source: Own compilation based on questionnaire results.
109
Aleksandra Gaweł, Barbara Jankowska
trepreneurship education (e.g. Taatila, 2010; Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006; Tan and Ng, 2006). The respondents considered the knowledge acquired during the course of studies to be useful when starting their own enterprise (the average for this category of answer was 3.61), although some respondents stressed the necessity of providing the students with even more opportunities for contact with economic practice. Such contact is at the same time the perfect way of promoting entrepreneurship. The respondents agreed that the university was able to promote entrepreneurship (the average for this category of answer was 4.5), but examples of successful business enterprises and contact with successful entrepreneurs were invaluable.
4. Conclusions – how to teach entrepreneurship The authors’ experiences related to conducting the “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” specialisation, and the results of the survey, make it possible to formulate several reflections on the issue of entrepreneurship education at university level. The structure of the respondent sample in the survey shows that entrepreneurship seems to be primarily the domain of young men. There may be several reasons for this, one of them being that women tend to prefer greater stability and security. Also, the time after graduation is often the time of starting a family, which often temporarily precludes women from undertaking professional activity. The lower involvement of young women in entrepreneurial activity, confirmed even in the survey presented in this paper, highlights the importance of motivating women to be entrepreneurs. The findings of the study also indicate that encouraging and promoting entrepreneurship ought to be directed at people who have just graduated. Out of the eighteen respondents, only five (all of them men) declared that they were running their own businesses. However, before starting their studies, as many as 10 people expressed a definite intention for such a course of action. Therefore, the question arises as to the reasons for this change in attitudes. Being an entrepreneur is not only a way of earning a living, but in essence it is a way of life. Perhaps studies focusing on entrepreneurship verified the students’ perception of entrepreneurship. Also, some other significant circumstances and opportunities may have appeared which influenced their decisions. However, such a change in the students’ visions regarding their professional lives, and in the realization of their professional development, may indicate that entrepreneurship is usually only associated with earning money; a perception which the course “Entrepreneurship in Small and Medium Enterprises” verified. Entrepreneurship is really a personal attitude which can bring financial benefits, but this usually takes longer than in the case of working for a large corporation, where after 3 to 5 years an employee may be promoted to a high position. When educating future entrepreneurs, particular emphasis ought to be placed on choosing such forms of conducting classes which promote student activity, 110
Teaching entrepreneurship – an example from the Poznan University of Economics
for example working on student projects, visits to companies, simulations, workshops and seminars; whereas some traditional forms of education which rely on ex cathedra lectures ought to be, if possible, limited. The thematic blocks of subjects which the students regarded as desirable and useful are those which concentrate on the issues connected with the financial aspects of entrepreneurial activity and with the skill of market analysis. This means that it is essential to ensure a high standard and provide a broad range of these subjects in order to cover a wide spectrum of issues connected with financial planning, financial analysis and accountancy. Finally, the fact that the students stress the importance of market analysis indicates that young people are aware that it is necessary to know the market in order to successfully operate in it. Thus, it seems advisable to expand courses that on the one hand present the methodological aspects of market analysis, and on the other hand show how the methods can be used in practice by relating them to specific trades and geographical markets. The graduates also emphasize the immense importance of workshops and case studies. Such preferences with regard to the forms of classes seem to correspond to their preferences with regard to their content. The forms which the respondents indicated are definitely conducive to developing the abilities and skills involved in financial management and market analysis. It seems important to pay particular attention to an evaluation of the business ideas and solutions suggested by the students during classes. In the opinion of the authors, one has to accept the fact that graduates begin their professional careers by taking advantage of the hired employment opportunities offered on the job market, and they become entrepreneurs after several years of professional activity. The question about reasons for this kind of attitude towards entrepreneurship remains open. This may seem to be a paradox, but maybe one explanation is that young people first try to earn some money in order to develop their own business later. There are some successful stories of graduates who followed this path of professional career; but this is a topic for another paper.
References Bates T., 1990. Entrepreneur Human Capital Inputs and Small Business Longevity. The Review of Economics and Statistics 4: 551–559. Bird B., 1988. Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention. Academy of Management Review, 13, 3: 442–453. Blenker P., Dreisler P., Kjeldsen J., 2006. Entrepreneurship Education – the New Challenge Facing the Universities. Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark. Cressy R., 1996. Are Business Startups Debt – Rationed? The Economic Journal 106: 1253– 1270. Dakhli M., de Clercq D., 2004. Human capital, social capital, and innovation: a multicountry study. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 16: 107–128. Delmar F., Davidsson P., 2000. Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 12: 1–23.
111
Aleksandra Gaweł, Barbara Jankowska Etzkowitz H., Dzisah J., 2008. Rethinking development: circulation in the triple helix. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20, 6: 653–666. Evans D.S., Jovanovic B., 1989. An Estimated Model of Entrepreneurial Choice under Liquidity Constraints. Journal of Political Economy 97, 4: 808–827. Hamini D.Y., Wenneberg K., Berglund H., 2008. Creativity in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 15, 2: 304–320. Heinonen J., 2007. An entrepreneurial-directed approach to teaching corporate entrepreneurship at university level. Education and Training 49, 4: 310–324. Heinonen J., Poikkijoki S.-A., 2006. An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: mission impossible? Journal of Management Development 25, 1: 80–94. Iyigun M.F., Owen A.L., 1998. Risk, Entrepreneurship, and Human – Capital Accumulation. The American Economic Review 88, 2: 454–457. Johansson E., 2000. Self-employment and Liquidity Constraints: Evidence from Finland. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 102: 123–134. Jones C., 2010. Entrepreneurship education: revisiting our role and its purpose. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 17, 4: 500–513. Koellinger P., 2008. Why are some entrepreneurs more innovative than others? Small Business Economics 31: 21–37. Korunka Ch., Frank H., Lueger M., Mugler J., 2003. The Entrepreneurial Personality in the Context of Resources. Environment, and the Startup Process – A Configurational Approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28: 23–42. Naudé W., Gries T., Wood E., Meintjies A., 2008. Regional determinants of entrepreneurial start-up in a developing country. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 20: 111–124. Papagiannidis S., Li F., Etzkowitz H., Clouser M., 2009. Entrepreneurial networks: A Triple Helix approach for brokering human and social capital. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 7: 215–235. Rae D., 2007. Entrepreneurship: from opportunities to action. Palgrave Macmillan. Taatila V.P., 2010. Learning entrepreneurship in higher education. Education and training 52, 1: 48–61. Tan S.S., Ng C.K.F., 2006. A problem-based learning approach to entrepreneurial education. Education and Training 48, 6: 416–428. Uusitalo R., 2001. Homo entreprenaurus? Applied Economics 33: 1631–1638.
Authors’ address:
Prof. dr hab. Aleksandra Gaweł Dr Barbara Jankowska Poznań University of Economics, Al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland e-mails:
[email protected],
[email protected]
Entrepreneurship in Higher Education – the case of Poland Maciej Pietrzykowski
Summary: Entrepreneurship is an important factor in the economic development and wealth of a nation. Poland has implemented the teaching of entrepreneurship at the secondary level, but in higher education, the implementation of entrepreneurship in the curricula still faces many barriers. This paper indicates the most important hurdles, together with ways of overcoming them, as well as some chosen initiatives to promote entrepreneurship. Keywords: entrepreneurship, higher education JEL codes: I 23, L 26
1. Introduction Vocational education and training differs amongst countries. In a few Member States entrepreneurship is already explicitly embedded in the framework of their national curricula (Spain, Poland, Finland, Ireland or Cyprus), while in others there is still a need to foster the process. The aim of this Chapter is to present the stages in the implementation of entrepreneurship in higher education in Poland, as well the initiatives that are being undertaken in parallel in order to promote entrepreneurship amongst young people. In 2003, Poland launched the Foundations of Entrepreneurship programme as an obligatory course at secondary level (two hours per week in comprehensive and technical schools, and one hour per week in vocational schools). In it, students can acquire new knowledge and entrepreneurial skills. The educational objectives are as follows (Ministry of Education and Sport, 2002): 1. To develop communication skills and decision making abilities. 2. To acquire knowledge about the economy. To understand the basic rules of running a business in a variety of forms.
113
Maciej Pietrzykowski
3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
To develop the ability to actively participate in the labour market. To understand business ethics. To understand market mechanisms. To develop an interest in start-ups and running a business. To know the rules of the European and global economy. A complementary subject “Economics in practice” has also been launched. Students can use such practical knowledge of life in school and beyond. At the students’ disposal are many teaching tools with preference being given to projects. School inspections have shown that the course “Foundations of entrepreneurship” and the module “Education for active participation in business life” are included in the school curriculum in various types of schools in accordance with the established regulations (European Commission, 2007). Education in entrepreneurship should start at an early stage – the entrepreneurial spirit is shaped during adolescence. The basic features of entrepreneurship are as follows: motivation, the quest for autonomy, creativity, initiative, risk tolerance, opportunity seeking, goal-setting, self-reliance, inner drive and perseverance. Each person needs to have this catalogue of features formed at an early stage of life (Węcławska and Zadura-Lichota, 2010). Education in entrepreneurship should then be continued at the next stage, University. At this higher educational level one of the main goals should be to develop entrepreneurial capacities and mindsets. (European Commission, 2008). Poland is highly regarded in terms of its entrepreneurship education at secondary level, but at the level of higher education there is still much to be done. Entrepreneurship as a separate subject hardly exists, not only in non-business education, but even in the list of compulsory subjects at schools of business. It is also only rarely found in educational standards issued by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. In the next sections, the infrastructure of the Polish Higher Education System will be presented, as well as the place of education in entrepreneurship. The last section will include the initiatives of various bodies regarding the promotion of entrepreneurship and fostering its education. The chapter ends with the conclusions.
2. System of Higher Education of Poland in numbers In Poland there are 461 independent Higher Education Institutions (HEI) with 1.900.014 Students (academic year 2009/2010) – there is a summary in Table 1 (GUS 2010). A dynamic growth in the number of new schools and students can be observed over the last decade of the XX Century. However, in recent years this growth has declined. While the number of universities in the academic year 2009/2010 had increased by 48.7% compared with 2000/2001, last year it only increased by 1.1%. Outside Warsaw, the largest academic centres are Kraków, Wrocław, Poznań, Łódź, Lublin, Gdańsk and Katowice. 43.4% of all students were educated in these centres; and of these 53.3% were full-time students. Of the 461 higher education institutions in Poland in 2009, 131 were public universities with 1.267 mln students (66.7% of total), with 324.0 thousand in the first year. The maximum number of students occurred in the academic year 114
Entrepreneurship in Higher Education – the case of Poland
Table 1. The main statistics of the Higher Education System in Poland Specification Total Universities Technical Universities Agricultural academies Academies of economics Teacher training schools Medical academies Merchant marine academies Physical education Fine arts academies Theological academies Academies of the Ministry of National Defence and the Ministry of the Interior and Administration Others
Higher education institutions
Students (in thousands)
2000/01
2005/06
2009/10
2000/01
2005/06
2009/10
310 15 23 9 94 19 10 2 6 21 15
445 18 22 9 95 16 9 2 6 22 13
461 19 23 7 80 18 9 2 6 21 15
1584.8 443.3 318.4 85.6 369.5 148.3 29.5 10.1 22.2 12.8 9.3
1953.8 563.1 331.1 107.7 407.8 111.8 48.8 11.5 28.2 15.4 10.4
1900.0 535.6 317.5 81.2 310.0 106.8 60.0 10.0 28.2 16.1 7.5
10
7
7
12.2
14.0
19.8
86
226
254
123.6
304.2
407.4
Source: GUS, Warsaw 2010.
Table 2. Students and graduates in Poland (together with Foreigners) Academic year 1990/1991 1995/1996 2000/2001 2005/2006 2008/2009 2009/2010
Number of students
Number of graduates
403 824 794 642 1 584 804 1 953 832 1 927 762 1 900 014
56 078 89 027 303 966 393 968 439 749 x
Source: GUS, Warsaw 2010.
Table 3. Gross and net enrolment ratios* Academic year 1990/1991 1995/1996 2000/2001 2005/2006 2008/2009 2009/2010
Gross enrolment rate
Net enrolment rate
12.9 22.3 40.7 48.9 52.7 53.7
9.8 17.2 30.6 38.0 40.6 40.9
Source: GUS, Warsaw 2010. *
The ratios do not include students from abroad. The gross enrolment rate is the ratio of all the learners at a specific level for the whole population nominally assigned to this level of education (in tertiary school – 19–24 years). Net enrollment rate is the ratio of the number of students at a given level of education to the population defined as the gross enrollment ratio.
115
Maciej Pietrzykowski
2005/2006, but since then the student population has gradually decreased. In the last 4 years the ������������������������������������������������������������������ number �������������������������������������������������������������� of students has declined by 2.8%. These changes are associated with the systematic decline in the population of those aged 19–24 years. Changes in the number of students and alumni are presented in the following table. Although the number of students has decreased in Poland, the enrolment rate has grown. The next table presents the figures for the same academic years. According to data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (Canning et al., 2007) by 2002 Poland had already achieved higher enrolment ratios than many western European Union countries. In the academic year 2009/2010 the majority of students were educated in the fields of economics and administration, social sciences and pedagogics (just as in year 2000). Looking at the interest in studies of particular disciplines, we can notice a decreasing interest in the humanities, social sciences and information technology; with a growing interest in health and safety as well as in health care, architecture and construction. The following table shows the number of students and alumni listed by their field of study.
Table 4. Students and graduates by field of study (in % of total) Specification Pedagogic Arts Humanities Social sciences Journalism and information Economics and administration Law Biology Physics Mathematics and statistics Information technology Engineering and technology Manufacturing Architecture and construction Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Veterinary Medicine Social care Household services Transport services Environment protection Health and safety Source: GUS, Warsaw 2010.
116
Students 2009/2010
Graduates 2008/2009
12.3 1.5 7.7 12.8 1.2 23.2 3.1 1.9 1.5 0.8 4.3 6.8 3.3 3.9 1.7 0.2 6.7 0.3 3.7 1.0 1.4 0.8
15.9 1.1 8.2 14.5 1.1 25.8 1.7 2.1 1.5 0.8 3.5 4.9 2.6 2.0 1.8 0.1 6.6 0.0 3.8 0.6 1.0 0.2
Entrepreneurship in Higher Education – the case of Poland
To ensure a good quality of education it is important to have staff of highly qualified teachers. According to the statistical data (GUS 2010), in December 2009 the Higher Education Institutions employed 103.4 thousand academic teachers. Among them were 24 thousand Associate Professors, 1.4 thousand of “Docents”, 42.8 thousand Assistant Professors (Adjunkt in Polish nomenclature) and 13.7 thousand Post-graduate Assistants. Most teachers were employed by state Universities (82.4% of total), out of which 42.6% were women. Regarding the tertiary education level, there are two important benchmarks included in the Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in Education and Training (European Commission, 2009): –– By 2020, the share of 30-34 years old with tertiary education should be at least 40%; –– In 2020, at least 20% of those graduating in the European Higher Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad.1 The first condition has already been met, but Poland will have a problem with meeting the second criteria, since the country is still not an attractive destination for foreign students. Many students from Poland go abroad, but we still only attract a few. In order to ensure the quality and effectiveness of higher education, the State Accreditation Committee (SAC) was established in 2002. The main goals of the SAC are to submit opinions to the minister for higher education regarding the establishment of new universities, and for granting universities permission to conduct studies in a specific field and at a certain level of education. It also presents proposals for the assessment of higher education in compliance with the terms and conditions of study. Over 60% of the ratings issued in 2009 related to state universities and the vast majority (85% of the 582 decisions issued) were positive. However, it should be noted that the Commission considers only whether the institution meets the basic requirements. Appropriate quality control and evaluation procedures should be implemented by the institution itself. Such systems have not been implemented at Polish Universities on a larger scale yet. Before the State Accreditation Committee was formed, other bodies were responsible for accreditation, bringing together institutions with similar profiles. For economic sciences, the Foundation for the Promotion and Accreditation of Economics issue������������������������������������������������������������������� s������������������������������������������������������������������ the accreditation. Certificates of quality issued by the Accreditation Committee ensure a high quality of education in a particular field of study. So far (2010), 42 courses of economics in state and private universities have been granted certificates. Ensuring the quality of education in economic fields is particularly important at the moment. A large ����������������������������������� number����������������������������� of the Universities, in conditions of a reduction in the number of students (due to demographic reasons)
1
���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� The decision was taken during the Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la Neuve, Belgium, 28–29 April 2009
117
Maciej Pietrzykowski
and insufficient funding, seek to maximize their income from teaching, thereby lowering their quality of education.
3. Academic entrepreneurship in Poland – obstacles and barriers Compared��������������������������������������������������������������������� to other European countries, Poland appears to be a nation of entrepreneurs. The attractiveness of becoming an entrepreneur only reaches 28% in the EU-15 countries, while in Poland this figure is 42% (European Commission, 2010). The predominant barriers to setting up one’s own business is the fear of bankruptcy and the uncertainty of income. Also important are the lack of financial support, and complicated administrative procedures. In Europe ����������� the indications�������������������������������������������������������������������������� look better among young ������������������������������������������������� people������������������������������������������� , where more than half want to be entrepreneurs. (European Commission, 2010). The transformation in Poland has created favourable conditions for the development of entrepreneurship. Attention should be devoted primarily to changes in the way people think. The sense of individualism is still growing in Poland, as well as the need for success. An increase in the level of ambition, the desire to achieve personal success, the desire to catch up with the best in the world is an excellent medium for the development of activities aimed at raising the level of Poland’s prosperity; first of all by people taking the initiative and starting their own business. An increase in wealth leads to the development of a middle class, which is mainly responsible for the development of small and medium enterprises. Business development is fostered by the development of a business infrastructure. In Poland, there are an increasing number of venture capitalists, seed capitalists, business angel networks and initiatives designed to increase the likelihood of start-ups. A large proportion of respondents confirmed that school education inspired them to become an entrepreneur. This gives rise to the important conclusion that education has a significant influence on entrepreneurial attitudes. The question arises whether the teaching of entrepreneurship ������������������������������ at���������������������������� higher education ���������� establishments in Poland provides a basis for achieving success in professional life. After 1990 there was a great interest in entrepreneurship issues which has been reflected in many new private business schools (with “Entrepreneurship” in their names) as well as the possibility ������������������������������������������������ of���������������������������������������������� choosing������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� a specialization in����������������� ������������������� that topic. However, entrepreneurship in non-business schools is almost non-existent and tends to be redundant or at least not as important as hard science (European Commission, 2008). But even in business schools, preparing students to become an entrepreneur is still insufficient. Graduates are convinced that an education in economic schools prepares them for the profession, however after starting work, it appears that their education did not have much in common with the scope of their duties. Education programmes, as well as the organization of the education process, has resulted in the fact that the managerial class has not been dominated by graduates from business schools (Deszczyński, 2007). It should be mentioned that the curricula themselves are usually rated higher than the preparation of
118
Entrepreneurship in Higher Education – the case of Poland
graduates. This would suggest that the difficulties of graduating in economic studies are not too high (Kurkliński and Maszybrocki, 2008). This means that economic schools do not support the entrepreneurial spirit and do not educate young people to be an entrepreneur. The gap between the knowledge gained at college and related skills is primarily down to several fundamental reasons: –– Schools have almost entirely abandoned the apprenticeship concept; however, by working in companies students can not only acquire the ability to work in a team, but also gain the expierience of being in contact with a number of real problems which would allow them to acquire a suitable scale of professional resistance to stress; and it is outlined in the teaching standards issued by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education ������������������������������� that �������������������������� such a�������������������� n������������������� exposure is recommended in all fields of economic science; –– There is a lack of economic practitioners who combined an academic career with a professional life; most of the academics theoretical concerns do not seem to have much in common with running a business; –– Academics do not use many modern teaching methods, such as case studies or virtual games, while traditional methods are not sufficient; –– Universities are much more focused on transferring “academic” (theoretical) knowledge than preparing students for a profession; therefore, after graduation, though students can accurately translate the theory which can explain the underlying economic phenomenon, they can not perform the simplest activities in the company. As a result, graduates are not self-reliant; they cannot solve problems, they are afraid to take responsibility, they are afraid of risk. They are not entrepreneurs. Table 5. Entrepreneurship in the standards of education issued by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education Specification
Obligatory for graduate’s profile
Administration Economics European studies Finance and accounting Spatial economics Information technology and econometrics Logistics International economics Commodity science Tourism and recreation Management and production engineering Management
x x – – – – – – x x x x
Obligatory at 1st Obligatory at 2nd level of study level of study – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – x
Source: Own research on the basis of MSHE’s standards of education – downloaded 10.11.2010 from http://www.bip.nauka.gov.pl/bipmein/index.jsp?place=Lead07&news_cat_id=117&news_ id=982&layout=1&page=text
119
Maciej Pietrzykowski
Entrepreneurship, as a single subject, is almost non existent in the national educational framework, even in business schools. One exception is at the second level of university education, in the management field, ����������������������� where there ����������������� is the �������� pos���� sibility of implementing entrepreneurship as a separate subject. The Ministry of Science and Higher Education has prepared standards of education for particular fields. Table 5 summarizes �������������������������������������������������� the ���������������������������������������������� standards of education in economic science regarding entrepreneurship in higher education. As can be ���������������������������������������������������������������������� see���������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������� n��������������������������������������������������������������� , entrepreneurship has not been included in the ������������������� obligatory ��������������� curricula with the exception of management. The ability to run one’s own business or set up a new company is also rare in a graduate’s profile! In many case there is a specification as to the kind of company graduates should be prepared for, but seldom is the ability to work for oneself emphasized. A model description for an alumni’s profile in International economics could serve as an example: “Graduates should know the theory and practice of international relations, the theory and practice of taking political and economic decisions. Graduates should possess analytical and methodological skills, enabling them to work in positions that require conscious, rational and accurate assessments and advice, and have instilled habits of personal responsibility and initiative. Graduates should be prepared to work in institutions and businesses related to international trade, international organizations and institutions, units of government, foreign policy and economic research centres as well as experts dealing with international relations, diplomacy and the media – newspapers, radio, television.” It would be enough to add that a graduate should have the ability to set up and run a business in an international environment. However,���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������ this����������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� takes time and the belief that entrepreneurship is really something important. The curricula should reflect the specific profiles of graduates. Graduate profiles must therefore include entrepreneurship as an obvious element. An example of a good profile would be: “An Alumni from our Faculty is a manager ������������������������������������������������������ with�������������������������������������������������� universal skills �������������������������������� who����������������������������� is prepared to work in various industries, organizations and institutions in the service, trade, finance, and administration sectors; anywhere where there is a well organized project, the need for��������������������������������������������������������������������� money �������������������������������������������������������������� to be��������������������������������������������������������� well ��������������������������������������������������� spent���������������������������������������������� , people ������������������������������������� to be managed������������������������ and work��������������� ed������������� with to ���� create a bold plan and implement it, as well as starting and developing their own business” (Olearnik, 2007). It has to be mentioned that universities can put entrepreneurship in one part of curricula, where the selection of subjects is optional. However, universities do not include entrepreneurship very often even in this group. An �������������������� even������������� worse situation exists at non-business universities. Entrepreneurship has not been included at all as an obligatory subject. Of course, entrepreneurship education should not simply������������������� ������������������������� be reduced to setting-up a new company. It should also mean the acquisition of the knowledge and skills for running a business and the development of entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation (Wach, 2007). There are many barriers that hinder the quality of entrepreneurship education in higher education in Poland. Many of them exist in the organizational form of the system of education, but many are the victims of behind the scenes decision120
Entrepreneurship in Higher Education – the case of Poland
making. Sometimes there is also the question of resources. There is a long list of obstacles identified by experts. Below are the most important (European Commission, 2008): –– A bureaucratic culture inside the institutions and organizational inertia; –– Conflicting academic philosophies of the role of entrepreneurship in higher education; –– Lack of cooperation between different departments and faculties; –– Only a minority of professors and professionals are really committed; –– Lack of desire to change the way in which teaching has been always delivered (together with no acceptance of self training); –– Academics have no links with business life; –– Poor use of a broad base of pedagogical tools; –– Lack of rewards, incentives, recognition for faculty and educators; –– No established system for evaluating programme results; –– Lack of alignment between practices, outcomes and impact; –– The fragility of funding and resources. Because of these barriers, the university’s role as a driver of economic progress and development is strongly underestimated by the business community. Inertia manifests itself primarily in the curriculum. Introducing a new item into the educational agenda takes about two years, while it should take weeks. Moreover, it is rare to consult on agendas with business bodies, which should be a basic practice once every three years at least. But this inertia is also visible in the way of thinking, ����������������������������������������������������������������������� and an aversion ���������������������������������������������������������������� to change and to work���������������������������������� ing������������������������������� even harder. Of course it����� ������� cannot be expect that breaking all the barriers will be an easy task. It is difficult for businesses practitioners to replace teachers in the classroom, but to participate in guest lectures, to accept students for apprenticeship, or just to cooperate by preparing case studies would certainly help in raising the practical qualifications of graduates. Bearing in mind the barriers hindering entrepreneurship in Poland, there still remains the open question�������������������������������������������������� s������������������������������������������������� – what are the key success factors for integrating entrepreneurship into higher education and how can entrepreneurship be fostered.
4. Initiatives towards promoting and developing entrepreneurship in Poland The role of education, and especially higher education, in creating entrepreneurial behaviour in people is indispensable. In the literature and reports there are some hints as to what factors are successful for integrating entrepreneurship into higher education. At the level of educators, they are (European Commission, 2008): –– Professors and educators should be committed to entrepreneurship; they should be highly qualified academically which should be augmented��������� ������������������ �������� by������ practical experience;
121
Maciej Pietrzykowski
–– The focus of teaching should not only be on startups, and the concept of entrepreneur not simply equated with doing business; –– Student-led approaches should be encouraged; –– Links with students should be encouraged, as well as with alumni. In another publication based on field research among students and educators, the following recommendations were established (Banerski et al., 2009): –– A need��������������������������������������������������������������������� to change ���������������������������������������������������������� the mindset ������������������������������������������������������ of managerial staff in the ����������������������� direction ������������������� of an ������ ac��� ceptance of commercial activities by staff and students, as well as the need for a commercialization of knowledge; –– A need to strengthen the educational agenda of entrepreneurship at every level and in every field of study (very important is a holistic approach, which would ������������������������������������������������������������������������� include psychological, legal��������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� , ethic�������������������������������������� al������������������������������������ , social, organizational and economic issues); –– A need to rebuild educational programmes around entrepreneurship; and due to������������������������������������������������������������������������������ the specificity of students, ������������������������������������������������ it should ��������������������������������������������� have a ������������������������������� ��������������������������������� modular design suited for various purposes; –– A need to use experience-based teaching methods which������������������������ ����������������������������� is vital for the development of skills and entrepreneurship; traditional teaching methods (such as lectures) do not interact well with the development of entrepreneurial thinking; –– A need to strengthen the support infrastructure for entrepreneurship in terms of creating a good environment for Academic Incubators, Centres of Technology Transfer, etc.; –– A need��������������������������������������������������������������������� to develop intellectual property management rules, which should contain the procedure for cooperation with spin-offs; –– A need������������������������������������������������������������������������ for an ������������������������������������������������������������������� intensification ���������������������������������������������������������������� in ������������������������������������������������ the������������������������������������������ cooperation between scientists, researchers, educators, businesses and public administrators; –– A need to create new demands for new technologies. The extent to which these barriers are broken down ������������������������ ������������������� and the recommendations implemented will be crucial for the future of entrepreneurship in Poland, and thus the effectiveness of the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy and the Bologna Process as well as the opportunities for long-term and sustainable development. Some positives are visible. According to some studies, the estimated number of active innovation and business centres in Poland in 2009 was 717. Among them were the following: (Matusiak, 2009) –– 23 technology parks and 23 park initiatives; –– 17 technology incubators; –– 51 pre-incubators (academic business incubators); –– 46 business incubators; –– 87 technology transfer centres; –– 9 seed funds; –– 7 networks of business angels; –– 82 local and regional loan funds; –– 54 loan guarantee funds; –– 318 training and consulting centres, as well as information centres. 122
Entrepreneurship in Higher Education – the case of Poland
The number of centres��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� of innovation and entrepreneurship is growing rapidly. The availability of EU funds stimulates the formation of new centres with an often unprecedented organizational structure and offering a wide range of activities. There are also more and more programs to stimulate and promote entrepreneurship. The teaching and promotion of entrepreneurship in Poland is fostered not only by universities. There are many initiatives and projects run by non-profit organizations, government agencies and local government. Many projects have received financial support from structural funds. The scope and scale of support varies���������������������������������������������������������������������������� from country to country and ����������������������������������������������� region to ������������������������������������� region. The available support instruments can be grouped into four types: (Matusiak, 2009) 1. Reducing costs and initial business activities include: –– simplification of registering procedures and formal requirements; –– decrease in administrative and reporting activity costs; –– limitation issue for licenses and permits; –– flexibility of labour laws in the case of hiring and dismissing employees; –– simplification of taxation rules; –– transparent competences of supervisory authorities. 2. Technology transfers and assistance in implementing innovative undertakings: –– technological consultation and information; –– organizing����������������������������������������������������������� connections between entrepreneurs and �������������������� the research ���������������� and development environments (e.g. common research, human resources exchanges); –– creating a ��������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������� demand for new products and technologies (public procurement); –– assistance in certification and admission to markets; –– protection of intellectual property rights; –– development of the financial������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� risk system (business angels network, venture capital). 3. Motivation and improvement of entrepreneurs’ business competences by means of: –– development of training and consultation services; –– access to business information; –– creating a favourable social atmosphere towards entrepreneurship and people engaged in business activities; –– initiating cooperative and network systems in business; –– promoting an ethical approach to business; –– developing an enterprising professional approach; –– popularization and presentation of best practice; –– direct assistance and coordination of support; –– payments, tax relief and exemptions; –– favourable localizations; –– financial assistance covering grants, additional payments, preferential loans and credit;
123
Maciej Pietrzykowski
–– development of para-banking loans and guarantees; –– creating institutions, programmes and services (regional innovation and entrepreneurship systems). In Poland many such��������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������� instruments, tools and initiatives ��������������������� for������������������ supporting entrepreneurship are used. Below, selected initiatives will be presented. In the process of fostering entrepreneurship various ministries of the Polish government are involved. The Ministry of the �������������������������������������������������������� Economy ���������������������������������������������������� has �������������������������������������������� launched ���������������������������������������� many initiatives to support entrepreneurship in Poland. Creating the best conditions for doing business is the mission statement of the Ministry. The measures implemented by the Ministry of the Economy for enterprise and entrepreneurship are aimed at creating favourable conditions for their development through, inter alia, strengthening competitive advantages and ultimately achieving stable economic growth in the long term. These activities are primarily aimed at improving the access of enterprises to capital, strengthening the entrepreneurial, institutional, organizational and financial business environment, and filling the information gap by providing an analysis of the competitiveness of industrial sectors (Ministry of Economy, 2010). The Ministry of Science and Higher Education has launched a new programme “Innovation Wizard – Support for innovative academic enterprise” as defined under a Decree by the Minister of Science and Higher Education as the “Wizard of innovation – support for innovative academic entrepreneurship” of 28 May 2008 (Ministry of Science and Higher Education, 2010). The goal is to assist in creating conditions for the commercialization of research results at universities, and the creation and development of agencies working in the field of technological transfer, as well as developing standards of communication between the research sphere and enterprises. The following activities should be supported: –– Creating and implementing systems for the commercialization of university technology transfer; –– Preparation and implementation procedures for the intellectual property of universities; –– Creation and maintenance of databases containing information on the results of scientific research; –– Consultancy services and training consistent with the aims of the programme; –– Participation in trade fairs and exhibitions which relate to the cooperation of research units with entrepreneurs; –– Business information relating to the ����������������������������������������� ������������������������������������� commercialization of knowledge, technology transfers and entrepreneurship; –– Purchase of equipment for carrying the tasks set out in �������������������� the ���������������� aims of the programme. Another national programme is the “Fund of Grants for Initiatives”, ������ supervised by the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development. The main objective of this project is to extend the range of services in support of business development and the promotion of entrepreneurial attitudes among entrepreneurs and start124
Entrepreneurship in Higher Education – the case of Poland
ups provided by institutions acting on behalf of business development partners. Financing can receive four types of projects: (PARP, 2010) –– Transfer of best practices from local and regional level to the level of transregional or national; –– Develop and implement new forms of services for entrepreneurs and decision makers, or those interested in starting new businesses; –– Introduction of new forms of services that are complementary to�������������� ���������������� currently offered advice, information and training that supports entrepreneurship; –– Dissemination of high profile activities and services funded by the national and regional operational programmes – but only as a complementary measure in the above mentioned areas. One of the most interesting initiatives of recent years is the Strategy Road to entrepreneurial Poland prepared by Academic Entrepreneurship Incubators (AEI). The programme has been created by the Board of AEI, in consultation with experts from Poland, MIT in the USA and Southampton University of Great Britain, and is implemented in the biggest cities of Poland. The programme is of national nature and includes a package of system solutions for the Polish economy. It begins from changes in the educational system, proceeds with preincubating the best business ideas, introducing legislative changes, building an Entrepreneurship Centred Business Link, cooperating with Multimedia City, through to investments in innovative, young businessman by Seed Capital. The main objective of this initiative is to create and implement the best Europeanscale integrated system of creating academic entrepreneurship in Poland under the umbrella������������������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������������������������������� of the �������������������������������������������������������������� cooperating ���������������������������������������������������������� institutions: Academic Incubators of Entrepreneurship and Academic Incubators of Enterprise Business. The basic components (stages) of the programme are: (AEI, 2010) –– Stage 1 – Practical education in business – developing passion, creativity and practical entrepreneurship; implementing the project approach to tasks; as well as teamwork and trust towards businesses; –– Stage 2 – Network of Academic Entrepreneurship Incubators – in the last 5 years AEI have launched over 3000 companies, with currently over a 1000 still operating; anyone can come to AEI and set up a new company in 1 hours and benefit from its legal advice; –– Stage 3 – Institution of Entrepreneurship Advocate – its goal is to change the legal and mental �������������������������������������������������������������������� framework���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������� in Poland while fostering the process of facilitating the running of businesses; the Institute provides expertise and opinions regarding the law; –– Stage 4 – AEI Business Link – by 2012 Business Centres will be opened in the 6 largest cities in Poland; these centres will be unique in Europe for their knowledge, creativity, multimedia facilities and IT laboratories; –– Stage 5 – AEI Seed Capital – providing financial and technical support for start-ups to explore new innovative projects; –– Stage 6 – Innovators – building networks among entrepreneurs and scientists; complex preparation for set������������������������������������������������� ting��������������������������������������������� up new innovative companies;���������������� �������������������������� providing business knowledge, mentors and coaching support;
125
Maciej Pietrzykowski
–– Stage 7 – Values in business – business is not only a ������������������������� ��������������������������� joy, it �������������������� is��������������� also a ������� ��������� responsibility and an ethic. Every company should run a responsible business, help others, and share their experience and knowledge. The next very interesting initiative, “Enterprise Support Programme for Students”, was launched by the Polish Association of Direct Sales. With the slogan “The future in your hands” the programme is aimed at young people who want to take the risk of starting their own business. The program������������������ me���������������� includes training in both the organization of economic life and the pitfalls and difficulties that students will face ������������������������������������������������������������ while ������������������������������������������������������ starting their own business, as ������������������������� well as��������������� “soft” management skills, interpersonal communication, and teamwork (ESPS, 2010). The programme showcases the experience of those who manage companies nationally and abroad. The list of partners consists of various universities across Poland, scientific groups of students, associations and newspapers. The above mentioned initiatives towards promoting entrepreneurship are only a part of the many other activities undertaken by various public and nonpublic bodies. There is a ������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������� strong belief������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ that ������������������������������������ the creation �������������������������������� and promotion of entrepreneurial behaviour is a key success factor for improving Poland’s economic potential and competitive position on the international market.
5. Conclusions Small and medium enterprises constitute approximately 99.5% of the total number of enterprises in Poland. They contribute significantly to the scale of adaptability and competitiveness in the economy. They also determine the efficiency of the labour market and economic performance. The development of small and medium-sized enterprises is strongly influenced by the quality of education as well as ������������������������������������������������������������������ the encouragement������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ of ��������������������������������������������� entrepreneurship among young people and children. Poland has made great progress in the implementation of entrepreneurship in the curricula at secondary level. Entrepreneurship education has become not only fashionable, but also a duty and feature of our����������������������������� �������������������������������� time. In the field of entrepreneurship competitions and Olympics are organized. There is strong engagement from schools, ministries, local authorities and non-profit organizations in the process of creating entrepreneurial attitudes. However, at the level of higher education there is still much to be done. Entrepreneurship has not become an obligatory subject even in economics education ����������������������������� programmes������������������� (with a few exceptions). At non-economic universities the situation is even worse. Universities have a right to offer entrepreneurship as a non-compulsory subject, but only a few institutions have decided to do this. The main problem seems to be not only a lack of organizational capabilities, but mindset and a reluctance to change. The entire system of higher education in Poland is not conducive to the development of entrepreneurship – the lack of motivation among researchers, the inertia of organizational structures, weak management systems, poor academic career models, and a lack of staff involvement are what plagues the system in Poland. A minor problem in this regard seems to be a lack of funding. These systemic flaws��������������������������������������������������������������������������� unfortunately influence the quality of education. Poland has a high enrol126
Entrepreneurship in Higher Education – the case of Poland
ment rate, but unfortunately a large percentage of people with higher education does not correspond to a large number of educated people. We have moved from elitist education to mass education. The curricula are often shaped with regard to the needs and capacities of the teachers rather than the needs of students. We prefer to teach sophisticated academic – theoretical aspects more than practical business knowledge. In this context, it is difficult to expect that the graduate college will be more entrepreneurial than the candidate������������������������ s����������������������� who������������������� ���������������������� study. Higher education reform and, above all, a change in the mentality of the scientific staff is essential for improving the quality of teaching in the field of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship should become a core curriculum subject in all schools, primarily at non-economic universities. Building links between science and business is an important element in building the knowledge infrastructure, which in turn is a key success factor in increasing the competitiveness of a knowledge-based economy. It is necessary to increase the degree of commercialization of research results, which, without creating entrepreneurial attitudes will not be possible. Poles are a nation of entrepreneurs, but it is an ability that must be constantly strengthened and nurtured. Colleges and universities need to put a lot of effort into sustaining and strengthening the entrepreneurial spirit inspired in young people that enter school.
References AEI, 2010. http://www.inkubatory.pl/aktualnosci/33-droga-do-polski-przedsibiorczej, download 08.11.2010. Banerski G., Gryzik A., Matusiak K., Mażewska M., Stawasz E., 2009. Przedsiębiorczość akademicka. Raport z badania. PARP, Warsaw, pp. 1–159. Canning M., Godfrey M., Holzer-Zelazewska D., 2007. Higher Education Financing in the New Member States. Levelling the Playing Field. The World Bank Working Paper 112: 1–48. Deszczyński P., 2007. Rola uczelni wyższych w kształtowaniu postaw przedsiębiorczych z perspektywy absolwenta, menedżera i profesora. In: P. Wachowiak, M. Dąbrowski, B. Majewski (eds.), Kształtowanie postaw przedsiębiorczych a edukacja ekonomiczna. Materiały konferencyjne Akademii Ekonomicznej w Katowicach, Warsaw, pp. 81–89. Węcławska D., Zadura-Lichota P., 2010. Wpływ edukacji na postawy przedsiębiorcze i przygotowanie młodych Polaków do prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej. In: A. Wilmańska, Raport o stanie sektora małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw w Polsce w latach 2008– 2009. PARP, Warsaw, pp. 173–188. ESPS, 2010. Enterprise Support Program for Students, http://www.pssb.pl/pwps/ download 08.11.2010. European Commission, 2006. Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning. Brussels. European Commission, 2007. Assessment of compliance with the entrepreneurship education objective in the context of the 2006 Spring Council conclusions. Brussels, pp. 1–7. European Commission, 2008. Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially within non-business studies, Final Report of the Expert Group. Brussels. European Commission, 2009. Council Conclusions on a strategic frameworks for European cooperation and training “ET 2020”. Brussels, pp. 1–13.
127
Maciej Pietrzykowski European Commission, 2010. Flash Eurobarometer. Entrepreneurship in the EU and beyond. Summary Report. Brussels. GUS, 2010. Szkoły wyższe i ich finanse. Warsaw, pp. 1–364. Karlsson Ch., Friss Ch., Paulson T., 2004. Relating entrepreneurship top economic growth. CESIS, Paper 13: 1–27. Kurkliński L., Maszybrocki M., 2008. Ocena kształcenia absolwentów studiów o kierunku ekonomia oraz finanse i rachunkowość a potrzeby rekrutacyjne instytucji finansowych. Związek Banków Polskich, Polska Izba Ubezpieczeń, Warszawa, pp. 1–6. Matusiak B., 2009. Polish business and innovation centers in 2009: State of art. In: B. Matusiak (ed.), Business and Innovation Centers in Poland. Report. PARP, Warsaw, pp. 15–31. Ministry of Economy, 2010. http://www.mg.gov.pl download 08.11.2010. Ministry of National Education and Sport, 2002. Decree of 26 February 2002 on the foundations of pre-school curriculum and general education in particular types of schools. Attachment, 4. Ministry of Science and Higher Education, 2010. http://www.nauka.gov.pl, download 08.11.2010. Olearnik J., 2007. Obszary i formy działań uczelni dla wykształcenia przedsiębiorczego absolwenta. In: P. Wachowiak, M. Dąbrowski, B. Majewski (eds.), Kształtowanie postaw przedsiębiorczych a edukacja ekonomiczna. Materiały konferencyjne Akademii Ekonomicznej w Katowicach, Warsaw, pp. 114–119. PARP, 2010. http://www.parp.gov.pl/index/index/1456 downloaded 08.11.2010. Wach K., 2007. Kształtowanie postaw przedsiębiorczych w programach nauczania. Stan obecny i proponowane kierunki zmian. In: P. Wachowiak, M. Dąbrowski, B. Majewski (eds.), Kształtowanie postaw przedsiębiorczych a edukacja ekonomiczna. Materiały konferencyjne Akademii Ekonomicznej w Katowicach, Warsaw, pp. 120–127.
Author’ address:
Dr Maciej Pietrzykowski Poznań University of Economics, Faculty of International Business and Economics, Al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland e-mail:
[email protected]
The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study1 José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García
Summary: This study is aimed at clarifying the potential benefits of entrepreneurship education in the development of entrepreneurial vocations among future university graduates. Specifically, we present some results of a comparison between students with high and low perceptions of entrepreneurship education at a Spanish university, analysing the effect of this variable on their perceptions of self-efficacy to start a business, outcome expectations and preferences for self-employment. The sample was comprised of 495 university students, and the statistical treatment of the data was based on descriptive analyses and MANOVA. The findings show a clear low consideration of entrepreneurship education in the Spanish university studied, together with many statistically significant differences in the entrepreneurial orientation of undergraduates with different levels of perceived entrepreneurship education. The implications of these results and limitations of the study are discussed. Keywords: entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship career development, European universities, Spanish universities, socio-economic welfare, Social Cognitive Career Theory JEL codes: I 23, L 26, M 13
1. Introduction In the context of the wide-ranging social and economic changes that have been occurring in industrialized countries over recent decades, new, small enterprises have become a key element in creating employment, innovation and social welfare in all modern, competitive economies (e.g., Acs, Audretsch, and Evans, 1994; Audretsch, 2003; Audretsch et al., 2002; Audretsch and Thurik, 2001; Blau, 1987; 1
This study has been financed and conducted by Bancaja, through the Bancaja Chair of Young Entrepreneurs in collaboration with the University of León.
129
José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García
Bosma et al., 2008; Evans and Leighton, 1989; Thurik, 1999). This is true to such an extent that the encouragement of entrepreneurship is currently at the heart of a host of requirements and public standards in the countries of the European Union (EU), in an effort that has reached out to affect economic, social, educational, and employment policies (Enterprise Directorate General [DG], 2003; European Commission, 2000a; 2000b; 2008). The ultimate aim of these actions is to overcome the limited entrepreneurial spirit that characterizes the European population (Bosma and Levie, 2009; European Commission, 2007), particularly at a time when the economic crisis has considerably undermined the willingness to set up new enterprises. However, not all the blame can be laid at the door of financial fluctuations, as there is one factor typical of countries on the European continent, possibly harder to overcome, which leads to self-employment being seen as an unattractive option for the future. This is a cultural feature, taking the shape of a widespread fear of risk and failure, which condemns to oblivion the natural progress of many business ideas with the potential to contribute to socio-economic prosperity. In view of these obstacles, a modification of the traditional patterns of entering employment in Europe must be seen as a goal that will be possible (if it can be achieved at all) only over the longer term. It will have to be the outcome of wide-ranging socio-cultural changes leading individuals to become conscious of the attractiveness of entrepreneurial careers and to feel themselves capable of converting such aspirations into successful enterprises thanks to a framework of conditions and support appropriate for this purpose. In this context, contemporary European educational systems are seeing their missions expanded by the assignment of a further responsibility to provide a socio-economic boost, taking the form of the channelling of future generations of the working population towards entrepreneurial goals in accordance with the new needs of the productive sector. Among all educational institutions, the universities’ response to this aim is of particular relevance, since these organizations have generally been institutions at the service of the labour market, including both the employment needs of students, and the qualified labour needs of public or private enterprises and institutions recruiting recent college graduates. Despite the fact that this political awareness has turned entrepreneurship education into a frequent topic in the specialized literature over the last three decades (e.g., Fayolle, 2000; Fiet, 2000a; 2000b; Gartner and Vesper, 1994; Gibb, 1983; 1987; 1993; 1996; 2002; Henry, Hill, and Leitch, 2005; Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005; Liñán, 2007; Matlay and Carey, 2007; McMullan and Long, 1987; Pittaway et al., 2009; Robinson and Hayes, 1991; Vázquez et al., 2006, 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Vesper and Gartner, 1997), its systematic inclusion in university programmes is still a pending matter in most European countries. In the specific case of Spain, most university academic programmes have been so far centred on training wage-earning professionals; with this prevalent approach proving to be insufficient since unemployment, flexibility and overqualification have become the more representative descriptors of young people’s work experience over the last decade in this country (García-Montalvo, 2007; 130
The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study
García-Montalvo and Peiró, 2009; National Institute of Statistics [INE], 2008) and Europe in general (Eurostat, 2009; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2009a, 2009b). For this reason, in the middle of the process of adapting the Spanish university system to the requirements of the new European Higher Education Area (EHEA), it is important to reconsider whether the transformations undertaken, both in the University ’s aims and in the way in which these must be reached, will enable a better response to the social needs and expectations frequently assigned to these institutions. Therefore, since entrepreneurship can be seen as a promising option for work experience and professional development by recent university graduates in the service of the broader objectives of sustainable socioeconomic welfare, some effort should be devoted to analysing the potential effects of entrepreneurship education on future graduates’ career choices. From this framework, the paper is organized as follows. First, we review the guidelines marked out by the European common policy in the area of entrepreneurship education and provide a global description of the current state of the matter in European and Spanish institutions of higher education. Next, we present an empirical study carried out at the University of León, in Spain, aimed at analysing the role of higher education in the development of entrepreneurial vocations among undergraduate students. Finally, the conclusions and implications of the study are discussed.
2. Policy prescriptions for entrepreneurship education in Europe In EU countries, governmental interest in entrepreneurship education began to be explicit at the Lisbon European Council in March 2000, which set the objective of developing a dynamic, enterprising culture and fostering new firm creation as a source of sustainable competitiveness in Europe (European Commission, 2000a). It was contemplated that within this framework, among others things, there was a need to revise the European educational system and include entrepreneurship into the group of basic competences to be taught from school to University. Later in the same year, the European Chapter for Small Enterprises (European Commission, 2000b), currently renewed by the Small Business Act (European Commission, 2008), also stressed the objective of encouraging entrepreneurial initiatives by young people and developing training programmes for small enterprises by educational institutions, particularly at secondary and university levels, in so far as they are focused towards the service of individuals and society. This objective has been integrated in different political programmes developed over the last decade in Europe as supportive frameworks for new and small enterprises, education and employment. In the area of business policy, some advances refer to the Multiannual programme for enterprises and entrepreneurship (Decision 2000/819/CE of the Council); established for the period 2001–2007 and complemented by the more specific
131
José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García
Entrepreneurship Action Plan (European Commission, 2004) and the subsequent Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme, which is enshrined in the current Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) adopted for the period 2007– 2013 (Decision 2006/1639/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council). Concerning specific milestones in common educational policy, the principal reference is the Report from the Commission on the concrete future objectives of education systems (EU Council, 2001), which sets as a priority goal the development of an entrepreneurial culture through the regulated education systems, as expressed in the work programmes Education and training 2010 (EU Council, 2002) and the follow-up Education and training 2020 (EU Council, 2009). In the same line, the importance of entrepreneurship education has been ratified in the European Youth Pact, which was adopted by the European Council in March 2005, tying in with the European strategies for employment and social inclusion and the above mentioned Education and training work programmes (European Commission, 2005). In the context of this public awareness campaign, different prescriptive and best practice reports have been published as reference guidelines to include entrepreneurship teaching and support as specific missions of educational institutions. Among them, those deserving special attention are, Education for entrepreneurship (Enterprise DG, 2002), the Green Paper on entrepreneurship in Europe (Enterprise DG, 2003), the Oslo agenda for entrepreneurship education in Europe (European Commission, 2006), and the report Entrepreneurship education in higher education, especially within non-business studies (Enterprise DG, 2008a), this last devoted to suggesting best practice for education in universities. One outcome of the political developments mentioned has been the inclusion of a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship in the European Framework on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning to be trained within both formal and informal educational systems (Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council). In this framework, the entrepreneurship competence is defined as “(...) an individual’s ability to turn ideas into action. It includes creativity, innovation and risk-taking, as well as the ability to plan and manage projects in order to achieve objectives” (p. 17). Following this definition, the document also specifies the essential knowledge (e.g., identification of available opportunities for personal, professional and/or business activities, etc.), skills (e.g., proactive project management, representation and negotiation, etc.), and attitudes (e.g., initiative, proactivity, independence, innovation, etc.) linked to the competence. The advisability of promoting entrepreneurial mindsets as part of the academic mission of national education systems has extended to the current Bologna Process aimed at building a modern degree structure adapted to the professional profiles required by current EU society. In this context, the project Tuning educational structures in Europe (González and Wagenaar, 2003), devoted to the identification of learning results and desirable competences in several thematic areas, has included entrepreneurship into the group of systemic transverse competences to be trained across all levels of university higher education.
132
The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study
According to these specifications,, the European guidelines pinpoint three fundamental objectives of entrepreneurship training programmes in the University (Enterprise DG, 2002, 2008a): –– Developing entrepreneurial drive among students and raising their awareness of self-employment as a career option; –– Providing the technical and business skills that are needed to identify and exploit business opportunities, set up a new firm and manage its growth; –– Promoting the development of those personal qualities that are relevant to entrepreneurship, such as creativity, risk-taking and responsibility. Despite this political commitment, advances in entrepreneurship education do not follow the same pattern in all regions of the European continent. A recent special report from the project Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), devoted to analysing the current state of entrepreneurship education and training in 30 countries around the world (Corduras et al., 2010), classified the European participant nations into three groups with similar levels of economic development; from the lowest level group ‘factor driven’ (Bosnia and Herzegovina), to the middle level ‘efficiency driven’ (Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, and Turkey), and then to the highest level ‘innovation driven’ (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom). On the one hand, the report concludes that in all three economic groups young individuals are more likely to have received training in starting a business, probably reflecting a recent rise in entrepreneurship training offered in the formal education systems. On the other hand, the findings show that the amount and type of training vary widely across countries, and it appears to have the greatest effect on early-stage entrepreneurial activity in innovationdriven countries, where institutional contexts are more favourable than in nations with lower levels of economic development. Focusing on the analysis on entrepreneurship education in universities, some other additional results help to complete the picture. Based on the results of the Survey of entrepreneurship in higher education in Europe carried out with samples from most European countries (Enterprise DG, 2008b), it is estimated that more than half of Europe’s students at the higher educational level do not have access to entrepreneurship education. This means that about eleven million students have no opportunity to engage in curricular or extracurricular activities that can stimulate their entrepreneurial spirit. The survey also leads to the conclusion that, whereas more and more European universities nowadays have some institutional means to disseminate an entrepreneurial culture and give support to new venture creation, entrepreneurship education at a curricular level seems to be influenced by geographic location. In general, students in member countries of the EU have better access to entrepreneurship education than students in non-member countries or in those which have recently joined the EU. That is, more institutions in Western Europe offer entrepreneurial education compared to Eastern Europe. However, the study does not support the assumption that entrepreneurship education in the latter countries is less elaborate than in the former. In fact, it
133
José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García
seems that more institutions in Eastern Europe have a broader model of entrepreneurship education with more institutions having entrepreneurial professors and degrees; placing the strategic responsibility with top-management, and providing recognition for achievements in the discipline.
3. Some notes about entrepreneurship education in Spanish universities The Spanish educational system has begun to take its first steps towards the fulfilment of the purposes denoted by the European Commission with regard to entrepreneurship education. In doing so, most public universities have developed and implemented specific extracurricular activities to give support to potential entrepreneurial initiatives emerging from the centre of their own university fellowship, in the form of an increasing number of University-Enterprise foundations, business chairs, spin-off programmes or specific institutional programmes and centres of entrepreneurship (Directorate General of Small and Medium Enterprise Policy [DGPYME], 2006; National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation [ANECA], 2007). Nevertheless, there are reasons to think that the efforts made to develop specific entrepreneurial competences and foster favourable attitudes towards entrepreneurship through their own academic curricula are as yet insufficient and unsatisfactory. Without a doubt, most university programmes are much more focused on training wage-earning managers or technicians than producing qualified and responsible entrepreneurs and enterprises for society (Vázquez et al., 2006; 2009a; 2010). In this sense, whereas political awareness has resulted in a significant increase in isolated formative actions, both their range and methodological refinement are very limited (DGPYME, 2006). To be precise, formal instruction in the knowledge and abilities relevant to new venture creation is usually limited to academic degrees plans relating to Business and Technical areas, and being practically absent within the Humanities and Health Sciences (Vázquez et al., 2006; 2009a). In most cases, starting a new firm is not even considered as a possible job option for students, thus there is no awareness of the need for teaching basic entrepreneurial competences in the lecture hall, neither any structured activities to allow students to learn them in a regulated way. Likewise, some studies carried out in Spanish universities point to the conclusion that students from all types of faculties and degrees perceive a general low consideration for entrepreneurship issues in the university agenda, and express a global desire for a greater curricular and extra-curricular treatment of the enterprising spirit (Vázquez et al., 2006). Moreover, it has been observed that, when comparing students in their first and last academic year at university, the former show higher expectations of entrepreneurship education than final year graduates, thus confirming the poor effect of transit through university on the entrepreneurial vocations of students (Vázquez et al., 2009a; 2010).
134
The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study
Actually, weaknesses in university entrepreneurship education are congruent with the poor involvement of young university graduates in business initiatives. For example, in Spain, only 7.3% of new enterprises created in 2009 were initiated by entrepreneurs younger than 25 years old, and the average age of entrepreneurs was nearly 40 years old. What is more, despite the fact that 35.3% of Spanish entrepreneurs rely on higher education, they tend to start their businesses years after finishing their university degree (De la Vega et al., 2009). A similar pattern of results has been observed in other European countries with a similar economic level (European Commission, 2007; Bosma and Levie, 2009). From this evidence, the articulation of practical tools to facilitate the emergence of entrepreneurial interest as well as initiatives among undergraduate students should be a priority concern. In this sense, while many previous studies suggest that learning experiences provided by formal educational systems affect the development of entrepreneurial vocations in students (e.g., Matlay 2008; Smith, Collins, and Hannon 2006; Soutaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Lahan 2007), there is less evidence about the specific mechanisms though which higher education impacts on the entrepreneurial preferences and choices of people. To fill this gap, we propose in this paper a model for evaluating the effects on attitudes and intentions of entrepreneurship education at University.
4. Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial vocations The justification for greater entrepreneurship education in universities is inherent in the potential outcomes derived from it by students. Following on these lines, cognitive models of entrepreneurial intentions derived from the Model of the Entrepreneurial Event (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) have been the approaches most often applied over the last few decades to the study of entrepreneurial behaviour in university environments. In simple terms, these models assume that business start-ups derive from the formation of an entrepreneurial intention, which in turn is a direct consequence of individual attitudes towards the perceived desirability and feasibility of that behaviour which conveys the potential effects of other endogenous or exogenous variables such as education. While it is true that some successes have been achieved by this line of research when explaining the effect of entrepreneurship education on undergraduates’ entrepreneurial prospects (e.g., Corduras et al., 2008; Liñán and Rodríguez, 2005; Soutaris, Zerbinati, and Al-laham, 2007; Toledano and Urbano, 2008; Vázquez et al., 2009a, 2009b), several limitations have been recently noted with regard to the vague specification of the psychological constructs and educational variables used as predictors of entrepreneurial intent, together with other criticisms putting in doubt the validity of the approach in predicting the entrepreneurial behaviour of university students over the long term (e.g., Chandler and Lyon, 2001; Hemmasi and Hoelscher, 2005; Liñán and Chen, 2009; Robinson, Huefner, and Hunt, 1991).
135
José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García
From this viewpoint, general career models adopted from the vocational literature may provide a better and more balanced explanation of undergraduates’ entrepreneurial behaviour, and its educational triggers from the specific academic and professional reality experienced by students as they end their higher education. For instance, Social Cognitive Career Theory by Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994) provides a suitable framework to understand the meditational processes in the effects learning experiences have on the development of career interests and choices at undergraduate level. Based on Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986; 1997), the model emphasizes the relevance of two psychological variables in explaining the establishment and development of career goals: selfefficacy and outcome expectations. Self-efficacy refers to ‘people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances’ (Bandura, 1986). That is, self-efficacy is an attribution of personal competence and control in a given situation. It is linked to initiating and persisting in behaviour under uncertainty, to setting higher goals, and reducing threat-rigidity and learned helplessness (Bandura, 1986; 1997). In the context of careers, self-efficacy refers to the perceived personal capability for doing a specific job or set of tasks. That is why the level of self-efficacy predicts career choice and occupational interests (Bandura, 1997), including the entrepreneurial option. People avoid careers and environments which they believe exceed their capacities, and undertake careers for which they consider themselves capable. On this view, entrepreneurial self-efficacy has been defined as the person’s belief in their own abilities to perform the various skill requirements necessary to pursue a new venture opportunity (Chen, Greene, and Crick, 1998). Some research studies have demonstrated the predictive effects of entrepreneurial selfefficacy beliefs on entrepreneurial intentions and behaviours (e.g., De Noble, Jung, and Ehrlich, 1999; McGee, Mueller, and Sequeira, 2009; Moriano, Palací, and Morales, 2006; Sequeira, Mueller, and McGee, 2007; Townsend, Busenitz, and Arthurs, 2010; Vázquez et al., 2009a; Wilson, Kickul, and Marlino, 2007; Zhao, Seibert, and Hills, 2005). Whereas self-efficacy beliefs are concerned with ones’s response capabilities (i.e., ‘Can I do this?’), outcome expectations involve the imagined consequences of performing particular behaviours (i.e., ‘If I do this, what will happen?’). Several theories place a heavy emphasis on the relation of expected outcomes and actions. For example, Vroom’s (1964) model views behaviour choices as being largely dependent upon the subjective probability that certain actions will produce particular outcomes, together with the value one places on those outcomes. Based on these arguments, Social Cognitive Theory suggests that ‘people act on their judgments of what they can do, as well as on their beliefs about the likely effects of various actions’ (Bandura, 1986). In this respect, Bandura (1986, 1997), distinguished between several classes of outcome expectations with the potential to affect career behaviour, such as the anticipation of physical (e.g.,
136
The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study
economic rewards), social (e.g., approval), and self-evaluative (self-satisfaction) outcomes. Several studies carried out with samples of university students show a positive relationship between anticipation of positive consequences and entrepreneurial intentions and behaviours (e.g., Brenner, Pringle, and Greenhaus, 1991; Carter et al., 2003; Cassar, 2007; Douglas and Sheperd, 2002; Edelman et al., 2010; Kolvereid, 1996; Vázquez et al., 2009a). Furthermore, some previous works assume that both entrepreneurial selfefficacy and outcome expectations can easily be enacted in educational situations (e.g., Segal, Schoenfeld, and Borgia, 2007; Vázquez et al. 2009a). According to Bandura (1986, 1997), self-efficacy and outcome expectations in an activity such as entrepreneurship develops through four processes: (1) enactive mastery or repeated performance accomplishments, (2) vicarious experience or modelling, (3) verbal persuasion, and (4) autonomic or physiological arousal. University related activities should provide the opportunity for each of these four processes to be realised, through practical classes about business start-ups, conferences led by successful entrepreneurs as role models, encouragement in self-employment by professors, etc. In this framework, the main aim of this study is to justify a call for attention to be paid to entrepreneurship education at university, since it represents a students’ professional option in the service of social and economic welfare. Taking into account higher education institutions’ responsibility in terms of progress and growth through the professional training of qualified labour for the diverse functions required by the socio-economic reality, it would be expected that universities provide the formative resources and institutional supports needed to favour competence and feelings of control among students when considering the alternative of starting an enterprising project. Also, academic curricula should encourage students to view new venture creation as a highly desirable and beneficial work option in an increasingly complex labour market. In short, a suitable entrepreneurship strategy in universities should be oriented to stimulate future graduates’ perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy, positive outcome expectations and self-employment preferences. Therefore, this study follows the purpose of determining the extent to which these variables differ between students with high and low perceptions of entrepreneurship education at university, clarifying its potential benefits in the development of entrepreneurial vocations adapted to the new social needs. Based on these purposes, the next section describes a self-reporting study carried out with a sample of undergraduates in Spain.
5. Method and results 5.1. Sample Self-reporting data was collected through a structured questionnaire from a total sample of 495 students at the University of León, in Spain. Respondents were
137
José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García
taken from the final year of their degrees, in order to provide evidence from undergraduates with enough university experience, and ensuring a criterion of representativeness of 95% (being e = ±5%; p = q = 0.50). Participants were selected through a procedure of stratified sampling, in accordance with the real distribution of students by field of study. Based on this procedure 42.5% of respondents indicated a main academic background in Social and Legal disciplines, 34% in Experimental and Health, 18.4% on Technical and Engineering, and 5.1% on the Humanities. Among the total, 166 were males (33.6%) and 329 were females (66.4%).
5.2. Procedure Data collection was based on a collective procedure of questionnaire self-administration to groups of undergraduate students in timetabled university classes, in the presence of a researcher trained for this task. All participants answered the questionnaire on a voluntary basis, which consisted of the following sections. Perceived entrepreneurship education. Respondents were presented with five items about their perceptions of entrepreneurship motivation and training at the university. Examples of items are: ‘In my studies, the treatment of entrepreneurship issues is adequate’ and ‘My professors have encouraged me to start a business’. Respondents were asked to report the degree of accordance with each item on an eleven-point Likert-type scale form 0 (‘strongly disagree’) to 10 (‘strongly agree’), and an overall measure was obtained by averaging the five items. The scale obtained an adequate internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha value of .87, above the accepted .70 (Nunnally, 1978). For data analysis purposes we then categorised total marks on two levels, expressing high and low perceived entrepreneurship education at the university. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy. We used two items to ask students about their perceptions of personal and professional competence to become entrepreneurs. Responses were ranged on a Likert point scale from 0 (‘completely incapable’) to 10 (‘perfectly able’). For analysis purposes, each score item was treated independently. Outcome expectations. Participants were presented with three items about their expectations of obtaining economic rewards (physical outcome), social approval (social outcome), and personal satisfaction (personal outcome) by becoming an entrepreneur. Responses were ranged on a Likert point scale form 0 (‘strongly disagree’) to 10 (‘strongly agree’). For analysis purposes, each score item was treated independently. Entrepreneurship preference. Participants were asked about their preference for starting a new business as a work option when finishing their higher education studies on an eleven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (‘minimum preference’) to 10 (‘maximum preference’).
5.3. Findings Table 1 presents the mean, standard deviation and correlation coefficients for the study variables. All the variables were positively correlated, thus showing 138
The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations Variable Entrepreneurship education Personal competence Professional competence Economic incomes Social approval Personal satisfaction Entrepreneurship preference M SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-.20* .29* .22* .33* .21* .26* 3.49 2.05
-.65* .45* .29* .39* .59* 5.21 2.62
-.40* .23* .27* .44* 4.54 2.46
-.33* .46* .47* 5.26 2.42
-.54* .47* 5.19 2.75
-.42* 6.68 2.67
-4.18 2.84
Note: * p < .01.
a significant relationship between perceptions of entrepreneurship education at university, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, outcomes attributed to entrepreneurship careers, and preferences for self-employment. An inspection of the mean scores discloses a poor assessment of the formative resources, support, and encouragement given by the university to satisfy the entrepreneurial aspirations of undergraduates, with an average score of 3.49 in the education column; less than the intermediate value of 5. In the same line, students showed low perceptions of professional competence to start a business (M = 4.54), although they felt relatively confident of their personal attributes to become entrepreneurs, with an average score of 5.21 for that item. Furthermore, students reported a generalized low preference for entrepreneurship as a career choice, the mean value being in this case 4.18. On the other hand, students showed better scores for the outcome expectations items. In particular, the participants positively assessed the economic and social outcomes attributed to entrepreneurial careers, with average scores of 5.26 and 5.19, respectively. Nevertheless, the outcome most positively assessed was the expected personal satisfaction of becoming an entrepreneur, with a mean score of 6.68. Next, we performed a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) between-groups to investigate the effect of perceived entrepreneurship education (independent variable) on the items regarding perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and self-employment preference (dependent variables). As displayed in Table 2, the results showed a statistically significant difference between students with low and high perceptions of entrepreneurship education on the combined dependent variables: F (6, 1080) = 30.41, p < 0.001; Wilks’ Lambda = 0.855; partial eta squared = 0.145. When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately, differences in all the items were statistically significant according to a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.008. F and partial eta squared values are shown in Table 2. The average scores of students with high and low perceptions of entrepreneurship education at the university are shown comparatively in Figure 1. As
139
José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García Table 2. Results from MANOVA Variable Personal competence Professional competence Economic rewards Social approval Personal satisfaction Entrepreneurship preference
Wilks’ Lambda
.855
F
30.41*
Partial Eta Squared
F
Partial Eta Squared
.145
77.35* 32.82* 65.47* 84.92* 103.70* 132.34*
.067 .029 .057 .073 .087 .109
Note: * p < .001 (Bonferroni adjusted alpha level = .008).
expected, students with positive perceptions of entrepreneurship motivation and training at the university had higher average scores in the analysed variables than their opposites with a negative vision of the role of the university in entrepreneurship education, thus confirming the significant effect of education on the development of entrepreneurial vocations at the university. In descriptive terms, students in the high perception of entrepreneurship education group showed mean scores over the intermediate score of 5 in most variables. In short, they perceived themselves as personally qualified to start a business (M = 6.04), attributed favourable outcomes to entrepreneurial careers in terms of economic rewards (M = 6.15), social approval (M = 6.19) as well as self-satisfaction (M = 7.69), and showed a moderate preference for self-employment (M = 5.55). Despite this, entrepreneurship education did not seem to affect the undergraduates feelings of professional competence in a convincing way as these students did not perceive themselves as well-qualified professionals to start a business (M = 4.83). On the other hand, students with low assessments of entrepreneurship education at the university failed most items, with average scores under 5. These
Fig. 1. Differences between students with high and low perceptions of entrepreneurship education
140
The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study
students showed low perceptions of personal (M = 4.65) and professional competence to start a business (M = 3.93), attributed negative outcomes to entrepreneurial careers in terms of economic rewards (M = 4.95) and social approval (M = 4.71), and showed low preference for self-employment (M = 3.64). Paradoxically, they assessed the consequences of entrepreneurship in self-evaluative terms positively, confirming the link between starting a business and personal satisfaction outcomes (M = 6.09).
6. Conclusions Entrepreneurial activities act as one of the main driving forces of economic and social development the world over (e.g., Acs, Audretsch, and Evans, 1994; Audretsch, 2003; Audretsch et al., 2002; Audretsch and Thurik, 2001; Blau, 1987; Bosma et al., 2008; Evans and Leighton, 1989; Thurik, 1999). European governments have become increasingly aware about this matter over the last decade and a great number of political measures have been suggested for the inclusion of formal education in entrepreneurship competences as part of academic curricula in higher education institutions (Enterprise DG, 2003; European Commission, 2000a, 2000b, 2008; EU Council, 2001, 2002, 2009). However, most high level programmes in the European area seem to be much more centred on training wage-earning managers or technicians, rather than producing qualified and responsible entrepreneurs and enterprises for society (Enterprise DG, 2008b; Vázquez et al., 2006, 2009a). In this context, the principal aim of this paper was to clarify the potential benefits of entrepreneurship education in the development of entrepreneurial vocations among future graduates. Specifically, we presented some results of a comparison between Spanish undergraduates with high and low perceptions of entrepreneurship education at university, with the purpose of determining the effect of this variable on students’ perceived competence, outcome expectations and entrepreneurial preference. In sum, the results revealed a clear low consideration of entrepreneurship education at university and, as a consequence, students did not feel completely qualified to become entrepreneurs, and were not entirely aware of the potential economic, personal and social outcomes of starting their own businesses. Moreover, students showed low professional preferences for self-employment in the near future. From this point of view it can be concluded that universities do not seem to be satisfying either the real human capital needs of the productive sector and society, or the work insertion needs of future college graduates. However, the results obtained in this study suggest three potential benefits of education when fostering positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship at university. Firstly, entrepreneurship education influenced student’s beliefs about their personal competence to start a self-employed career, which is one of the most important variables in the prediction of entrepreneurial behaviour. Paradoxically, students did not trust their professional competences for entrepreneurship, the education not fostering an acceptable level of self-efficacy in the students. These
141
José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García
results prove the lack of a regulated and structured initiative to teach entrepreneurial competences in a formalized way in all university academic curricula. Secondly, motivational elements of entrepreneurship education helped to build a more positive vision of entrepreneurial careers in students, leading them to consider the potential benefits of entrepreneurship in terms of economic rewards, social approval and self-satisfaction. In this sense, students were especially aware of the personal outcomes of developing an entrepreneurial career. Finally, and most likely a consequence of the former, entrepreneurship education at university had a significant effect on undergraduates’ preferences for self-employment, thus making it clear the potential role of university academic programmes in changing the prevalent ‘wage employment culture’. In sum, this pattern of results reaffirms the need to reinforce the joint potential of universities’ curricular and extracurricular attempts in the design of specific procedures applicable to the setting up of an integrated strategy for entrepreneurship education. At a curricular level, the climate of change currently prevailing thanks to the progressive establishment of new degree programmes adapted to the EHEA, offers an excellent opportunity to work on the design of teaching programmes that meet the requirements of encouraging entrepreneurship. To serve this curriculum planning effort, and by way of suggestions for good practice, the work described above sits at the very heart of any educational intervention, namely a model of skill-based teaching that focuses on the knowledge, abilities and attitudes necessary for an adequate development of entrepreneurship. With the support of these prescriptions, the adoption of student-centred strategies for teaching, principally by means of a diversification from theoretical methods of training into experiential and co-operative forms of learning, must be seen as the most effective approach for the purposes of entrepreneurship education at universities. Similarly, it is also possible to argue in favour of increasing the amount of institutional extra-curricular resources devoted to entrepreneurship education. This would attempt to promote access by undergraduates to resources appropriate to their needs, converting entrepreneurial initiatives into a viable occupational alternative that potentially could be put into practice immediately at the end of their studies.
7. Limitations and future research The scope of the results obtained in the study carried out must be interpreted in the light of certain methodological limitations, which leave the door open for further work in this field. In this respect, it should be noted that the majority of items used for measuring the variables in the model were drawn up ad hoc for the purposes of this investigation, and have been used in an exploratory way. Hence, they will require future validation to check their usefulness for the purposes assigned to them in this work. Moreover, advances in this area depend on further psychometric de-
142
The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study
velopments focusing on the construction of valid and reliable measurement tools based on a greater definitional specificity for the constructs involved. Likewise, further longitudinal analyses are needed to give an account of the development of the initial processes of selecting entrepreneurial careers into the tangible form of newly successful enterprises in the market-place as well as the effects of education on such a sequential process. This would be by means of following up the entrepreneurial sequence as it develops over time among the same group of students. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to expand the investigative focus adopted here through the inclusion of other endogenous or exogenous factors with a potential to directly influence or moderate any of the relationships found between variables. Such a line of work would constitute a more decisive advance towards the identification of the personal, behavioural and environmental processes likely to be affected by higher education in the attempts at encouraging student entrepreneurial initiatives. Finally, further studies are required to permit the generalisation of the results to other Spanish or European institutions and disciplines. It would even be appropriate to consider other models of tertiary education, with the aim of gaining greater precision in the identification of the factors in curriculum planning, or the institutional environment itself, that determine the level of effectiveness attained in encouraging entrepreneurial initiatives in the young.
References Acs Z.J., Audretsch D.B., Evans D., 1994. Why does the self-employment rate vary across countries and over time? (CEPR Discussion Paper Nº 871). Centre for Economic Policy Research, London. Audretsch D.B., 2003. Entrepreneurship: A survey of the literature. (Enterprise Papers Nº 14). European Commission, Brussels. Audretsch D.B., Thurik R., Verheul I., Wennekers S. (Eds.), 2002. Entrepreneurship: Determinants and policy in a European-U.S. comparison. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston– Dordrecht. Audretsch D.B., Thurik R., 2001. What’s new about the new economy? Sources of growth in the managed and entrepreneurial economies. Industrial and Corporate Change 10: 267–315. Ajzen I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. Bandura A., 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bandura A., 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman, New York. Blau D., 1987. A time-series analysis of self-employment in the United States. Journal of Policy Economy 95: 445–467. Bosma N., Acs Z.J., Autio E., Corduras A., Levie J., 2008. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2008 Executive Report. Babson College, Babson Park, MA, London Business School, London. Bosma N., Levie J., 2009. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2009 Executive Report. Babson College, Babson Park, MA, London Business School, London.
143
José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García Brenner O.C., Pringle C.D., Greenhaus J.H., 1991. Perceived fulfillment of organizational employment versus entrepreneurship: Work values and career intentions of business college graduates. Journal of Small Business Management 29, 3: 62–74. Carter N.M., Gartner W.B., Shaver K., Gatewood E., 2003. The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 18: 13–39. Cassar G., 2007. Money, money, money? A longitudinal investigation of entrepreneur career reasons, growth preferences and achieved growth. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 19: 89–107. Chandler G.N., Lyon D.W., 2001. Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research: The past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25, 4: 101–113. Chen C.C., Greene P.G., Crick A., 1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing 13: 295–316. Corduras A., Levie J., Kelley D.J., Saemundsson R.J., Schott T., 2010. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Special Report: A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education and Training. Babson College, Babson Park, MA, London Business School, London. Corduras A., Urbano D., Rojas A., Martínez S., 2008. The relationship between University support to entrepreneurship with entrepreneurial activity in Spain. International Advances in Economic Research 16: 395–406. De Noble A., Jung D., Ehrlich S., 1999. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of a measure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action. In: R.D. Reynolds, W.D. Bygrave, S. Manigart, C.M. Mason, G.D. Meyer, H.J. Sapienza, K.G. Shaver (eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. P & R Publication Inc., Waltham, MA, pp. 73–78. De la Vega I., Corduras A., Cruz C., Justo R., González I., 2009. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Informe Ejecutivo GEM España 2009. Instituto de Empresa, Madrid. Decision 2000/819/EC of the Council of 20 December 2000 on a multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, and in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (2001–2005). Official Journal of the European Communities, L 333: 84–91. Decision 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Program (2007 to 2013). Official Journal of the European Union, L 310: 15–40. Directorate General of Small and Medium Enterprise Policy [DGPYME], 2006. Iniciativas emprendedoras en la universidad española, Centro de Publicaciones del Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio, Madrid. Douglas E.J., Sheperd D.A., 2002. Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26, 3: 81–90. Edelman L.F., Brush C.B., Manolova T.S., Greene P.G., 2010. Start-up motivations and growth intentions of minority nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management 48: 174–196. Enterprise Directorate General, 2002. Final report of the expert group “Best report” education for entrepreneurship. European Commission, Brussels. Enterprise Directorate General, 2003. Green Paper. Entrepreneurship in Europe. European Commission, Brussels. Enterprise Directorate General, 2008a. Entrepreneurship education in higher education, especially within non-business studies. Final report of the expert group. European Commission, Brussels.
144
The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study
Enterprise Directorate General, 2008b. Survey of entrepreneurship in higher education in Europe. Main report. European Commission, Brussels. European Commission, 2000a. Conclusions of the Presidency. Lisbon European Council, 23 and 24 March 2000. Accessed on 20th December, at http://www.maec.es. European Commission, 2000b. European Chapter for Small Enterprises. Accessed on 20th December, at http://ec.europa.eu. European Commission, 2004. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Action Plan: The European agenda for entrepreneurship (COM –2004. 70 final – not published in the Official Journal). European Commission, Brussels. European Commission, 2005. Commission Communication of 30 May 2005 on European policies concerning youth: Addressing the concerns of young people in Europe – Implementing the European Youth Pact and promoting active citizenship (COM – 2005 – 206 final – not published in the Official Journal). European Commission, Brussels. European Commission, 2006. Entrepreneurship education in Europe: Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning. Final proceedings. European Commission, Oslo. European Commission, 2007. Entrepreneurship survey of the EU (25 member states), United States, Iceland and Norway. Flash Eurobarómetro 192. Gallup Organization, Brussels. European Commission, 2008. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 25 June 2008 entitled “Think Small First” – A “Small Business Act” for Europe (COM – 2008 – 394 final – not published in the Official Journal). European Commission, Brussels. European Union Council, 2001. Report from the Commission of 31 January 2001: The concrete future objectives of education systems (COM(2001) 59 final – not published in the Official Journal). Accessed on 29th December 2010, at: http://europa.eu. European Union Council 2002. Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe. Official Journal, C 142. European Union Council., 2009. Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and Training (‘ET 2020’). Official Journal, C 142. Eurostat, 2009. Labour market statistics. EU Publications Office, Luxembourg. Evans D., Leighton L.S., 1989. The determinants of changes in U.S. self-employment, 1968–1978. Small Business Economics 1: 111–119. Fayolle A., 2000. Exploratory study to assess the effects of entrepreneurship programs on French student entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 8: 169–184. Fiet J.O., 2000a. The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 16: 1–24. Fiet J.O., 2000b. The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing 16: 101–117. García-Montalvo J., 2007. La inserción laboral de los universitarios: Entre el éxito y el desánimo. Panorama Social 6: 92–106. García-Montalvo J., Peiró J.M., 2009. Análisis de la sobrecualificación y la flexibilidad laboral. Observatorio de Inserción Laboral de los Jóvenes 2008. Fundación Bancaja-IVIE, Valencia. Gartner W.B., Vesper K.H., 1994. Experiments in entrepreneurship education: Successes and failures. Journal of Business Venturing 9: 179–187. Gibb A.A., 1983. The small business challenge to management education: Introduction. Distinguishing characteristics of small firms. Journal of European Industrial Training 7, 5: 3–41.
145
José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García Gibb A.A., 1987. Enterprise culture: Its meaning and implications for education and training. Journal of European Industrial Training 11, 2: 3–38. Gibb A.A., 1993. The enterprise culture and education. International Small Business Journal 11, 3: 11–34. Gibb A.A., 1996. Entrepreneurship and small business management: Can we afford to neglect them in the twenty-first century business school? British Journal of Management 7: 309–321. Gibb A.A., 2002. In pursuit of a new “enterprise” and “entrepreneurship” paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Review 4: 233–269. González J., Wagenaar R. (eds.), 2003. Tuning educational structures in Europe. Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao. Hemmasi M., Hoelscher M., 2005. Entrepreneurship research: Using students as proxies for actual entrepreneurs. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 8: 49–59. Henry C., Hill F., Leitch C., 2005. Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepre neurship be taught? Part I. Education + Training 47: 98–111. Katz J.A., 2003. The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing 18: 283–300. Kolvereid L., 1996. Organizational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 20, 3: 23–32. Kuratko D.F., 2005. The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29: 577–598. Lent R.W., Brown S.D., Hackett G., 1994. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 45: 79–122. Liñán F., 2007. The role of entrepreneurship education in the entrepreneurial process. In: A. Fayolle (ed.). Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 230–247. Liñán F., Chen Y., 2009. Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33: 593–617. Liñán F., Rodríguez J.C., 2005. Actitudes empresariales de los estudiantes universitarios andaluces (Documentos de trabajo, nº 30). Departamento de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Jaén, Jaén. Matlay H., 2008. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 15: 382–396. Matlay H., Carey C., 2007. Entrepreneurship education in the UK: A longitudinal perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 14: 252–263. McGee J.E., Mueller S.L., Sequeira J.M., 2009. Self-efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33: 965–988. McMullan W.E., Long W.A., 1987. Education in the nineties. Journal of Business Venturing 2: 261–275. Moriano J.A., Palací F.J., Morales J.F., 2006. Adaptation and validation of the entrepreneurial self-efficacy scale in Spain. Revista de Psicología Social 21: 51–64. National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation [ANECA], 2007. Mapa de las actividades de empleo realizadas por las universidades. ANECA, Madrid. National Institute of Statistics [INE], 2008. Encuesta de Población Activa. Accessed on 18th May 2010, at: http://www.ine.es. Nunnally J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGrow–Hill, New York.
146
The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: a Spanish study
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2009a. Education at a Glance. OECD, Paris. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2009b. International Migration Outlook. OECD, Paris. Pittaway L., Hannon P., Gibb A.A., Thompson J., 2009. Assessment practice in enterprise education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 15: 71–93. Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union: L 394, 10–18. Robinson P.B., Hayes M., 1991. Entrepreneurship education in America’s major universities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15, 3: 41–52. Robinson P.B., Huefner J.C., Hunt H.K., 1991. Entrepreneurial research on student subjects does not generalize to real world entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management 29, 2: 42–50. Segal G., Schoenfeld J., Borgia B., 2007. Which classroom-related activities enhance students’ entrepreneurial interests and goals?: A Social Cognitive Career Theory perspective. Academy of Entrepreneurial Journal 13: 79–98. Sequeira J., Mueller S.L., McGee J.E., 2007. The influence of social ties and self-efficacy in forming entrepreneurial intentions and motivating nascent behavior. Journal of Development Entrepreneurship 12: 275–293. Shapero A., Sokol L., 1982. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In: C. Kent, D. Sexton, K. Vesper (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 72–90. Smith A.J., Collins L.A., Hannon P.D., 2006. Embedding new entrepreneurship programmes in UK higher education institutions. Challenges and considerations. Education + Training 48: 555–567. Soutaris V., Zerbinati S., Al-laham A., 2007. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing 22: 566–591. Thurik R., 1999. Entrepreneurship, industrial transformation and growth. In: G.C. Liebcap (ed.), The sources of entrepreneurial activity. JAI Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 29–66. Toledano N., Urbano D., 2008. Promoting entrepreneurial mindsets at universities: A case study in the South of Spain. European Journal of International Management 2: 382–399. Townsend D.M., Busenitz L.W., Arthurs J.D., 2010. To start or no to start: Outcome and ability expectations in the decision to start a new venture. Journal of Business Venturing 25: 192–202. Vázquez J.L., Georgiev I., Gutiérrez P., Lanero A., García M.P., 2010. Promoting regional development from University. Students’ perception on entrepreneurship motivation and training programs. The Trakia Journal of Sciences 12–13: 1–7. Vázquez J.L., Gutiérrez P., Lanero A., García M.P., 2009a. El desarrollo del potencial empresarial de los estudiantes en las universidades públicas de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León. Revista de Investigación Económica y Social de Castilla y León 12: 19–170. Vázquez J.L., Naghiu A., Gutiérrez P., Lanero A., García M.P., 2009b. Entrepreneurship potential in the University: Intentions and attitudes towards new venture creation. Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 66: 507–512. Vázquez J.L., Naghiu A., Gutiérrez P., Placer J.L., 2006. University and entrepreneurship: Some results from the Spanish Legio experience 2002–06. Buletinul USAMV-CN 63: 1–6.
147
José Luis Vázquez, Ana Lanero, Pablo Gutiérrez, M. Purificación García Vesper K.H., Gartner W.B., 1997. Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing 12: 403–421. Vroom V.H., 1964. Work and motivation. Wiley, New York. Wilson F., Kickul J., Marlino D., 2007. Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31: 387–406. Zhao H., Seibert C., Hills C., 2005. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 1265–1272.
Authors’ addresses:
José Luis Vázquez, PhD Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, University of León, Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071, León, Spain e-mail:
[email protected], Phone +34 987 29 17 51 Ana Lanero, PhD Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, University of León, Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071, León, Spain e-mail:
[email protected] Pablo Gutiérrez, PhD Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, University of León, Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071, León, Spain e-mail:
[email protected] M. Purificación García, PhD Faculty of Labour Sciences, University of León, Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071, León, Spain e-mail:
[email protected]
The media, negative values and graduate enterprise education. Constructing student...
The media, negative values and graduate enterprise education. Constructing student ideas about innovation and enterprise Lynn Martin, Clare Schofield
Summary: This paper reports research exploring perceptions of entrepreneurship and innovation to identity how new media developments have impacted on the process of construction of meaning around these terms. A UK study with 400 international and national university students identified stereotypical perceptions of terms such as ‘innovator’ and ‘entrepreneur’, associating values and emotions with the development of these constructs, often ignored in research on enterprise intention and how nascent entrepreneurs develop entrepreneurial identities. This helped to understand lack of engagement with graduate enterprise activities by UK students but offered a challenge to educators given the way negative values were embedded in the signals given in the media. Keywords: graduate enterprise education; social construction; new media; entrepreneurial identity JEL codes: I 23, L 26, M 13
1. Introduction As part of their support for business start up in a UK region, the regional development agency reviewed numbers of those attending enterprise activities it had funded at three regional universities. It was disappointed to realise that UK students appeared to avoid attending while international students were three times as likely to attend, across faculty boundaries. The university was also keen to establish how to better engage UK students. Following discussion, crossinstitution researchers were asked to explore this, taking one university as the worst example. The funders had the expectation that risk aversion and anxiety about finance would prove to have been the main barriers. The researchers howe-
149
Lynn Martin, Clare Schofield
ver also included questions to explore underlying issues and it is this upon which most of this paper is based, given that the results showed that risk aversion and finance were not significant issues for respondents. This included exploring how individuals constructed their concepts of entrepreneurship and whether the media had a role to play in interpreting what concepts meant to the individual.
2. Social construction contexts in exploring entrepreneurship and innovation The process of business start up is characterised in many ways but is often seen in terms of individual efforts and as a rational process of assessing benefits and evaluating risks (Greenbank, 2006). This approach ignores the hopes, aspirations, values and emotions bound up in this process ; ignoring social influences can offer only limited routes to explain and record entrepreneurial action (Goss, 2005). As individuals meet and interact they affect and influence each other’s actions, routinely, consciously and unconsciously, via language and symbolic communication (Barnes, 2000). This social constructivist approach allows understanding to form so that the individual can conceptualise enterprise and entrepreneurship (Devins and Gold, 2002). This approach is also particularly important in the context of entrepreneurial intention given research emphasising “the intentional, perceptual, expectancy-driven nature of the entrepreneurial/ start-up decision processes rather than the more deterministic view of traditional trait and demographic approaches” (Nabi et al., 2006, p. 23). By using this approach, human actions can be explored to find explanations beyond rationality and normative orientation, enabling theories to be formed about creativity and innovation (Fuller et al., 2005; Spinosa et al., 1997). This provides a way to explain how beliefs about business and management are formed, socially constructed and subject to change, contradiction and re-creation (Schwandt, 2000). To ensure better take up of enterprise education and better rates of business start up, it is important to understand how individuals make sense of the world and develop their own view of it. How do individuals form ideas about enterprise and do how they see themselves in relation to it? This is of particular interest when exploring who chooses an enterprise route and who does not. These approaches are needed given the slow progress for some groups in business ownership (Martin et al., 2008), despite measures, for instance, to encourage female enterprise via the provision of finance and specific business support (Prowess, 2007). By exploring softer factors it is suggested that better understanding of motives can be achieved, supporting more effective measures to be formulated to encourage members of such groups to envisage themselves as business creators and owners – to support the development of entrepreneurial identity in such groups through the development of an entrepreneurial ‘future possible self ’ (Martin, 2010).
150
The media, negative values and graduate enterprise education. Constructing student...
3. Business start up, entrepreneurial intent and self-efficacy For the last decade, international governments have promoted the need for enterprise, innovation and entrepreneurship to ensure the development and maintenance of a successful and competitive national economy, (European Commission, 2003; Latham, 1999). Recognising the need for cultural change across the board various measures including tax incentives and grants to support innovation were initiated with varying success. Part of these measures emphasised and sought to address the need for business start up, especially in the graduate population (Miclea, 2004), in order to ensure the development of a knowledge-based economy likely to be more competitive and to add value to products and services. In policies and initiatives driving UK graduate entrepreneurship education, students are portrayed as potential or nascent entrepreneurs, with an intention to act, already thinking and envisaging themselves as future business owners and innovators (Hannon and Pittaway, 2006; McKeown et al., 2006). However the transition from entrepreneurial intentions to actual business creation is often assumed rather than proven, and this area is under-researched in terms of identity and career development and underlying decision-making processes (Nabi et al., 2006). Bound up in the development of entrepreneurial identity is individual selfbelief and self-efficacy. In order to start up a business, the individual must have sufficient confidence that he or she is competent to do so – self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). High levels of self-belief and self-efficacy have been associated with positive results in terms of job completion and task fulfilment (Locke, Fredrick, Lee, and Bobko, 1984; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). The way in which reality is described, explained and represented may be derived from relationships (Fletcher, 2006) who argues that business start up occurs in the context of relationships and communal influences, which affect individual sense-making. She argues that in making sense of their own abilities and the opportunities in the environment, meaning is derived from relationships with people, institutions, material objects, physical entities and language. Similarly, others suggest that research needs to take into account those interactions between human and environmental resources that stimulate intention (Rotefoss and Kolvereid, 2005). In-depth contextual approaches are seen as important here to understand entrepreneurial action (Rae, 2002; Segal, Borgia and Schoenfeld, 2005). Individual imagination is embedded in context and culture, where imagined actions may be grounded in personal expectations but situated in a context of shared family and communally based stereotypes and procedures (Berglund, 2005). Wade et al. (2003) suggest that an accepted ontological basis for viewing entrepreneurship is as a narrative of ‘becoming’ so the study of the entrepreneurship requires consideration of the process of assuming an identity, of becoming, being and belonging and how this system of knowledge becomes accepted as reality. The process of becoming may be seen as the first stage, over
151
Lynn Martin, Clare Schofield
a period of time the individual reaches the point of business start up and engages in the process. Models for this process based on perceptual components are proposed by Ajzen (1991) and Shapero (1982). Shapero emphasised perceptual aspects affecting whether and how the individual acts on his or her decisions, i.e., how desirable is business start up as an option for me, and, can I achieve this – is it feasible for me to start up a business? This is developed in Ajzen’s model to offer perceptions of three aspects that determine intention, i.e., perceptions of desirability, norms and feasibility. Hence intention is governed by perceptions of: 1. The personal attractiveness of the proposed action or behaviour to the individual; 2. The social expectations and pressures on the individual from others to perform that behaviour, whether these ‘others’ are family or community members, friends and colleagues; and 3. Their own ability to carry out a target behaviour, based their interpretation of past experiences, present issues and future barriers (Nabi et al., 2006; Henry et al., 2003; Ajzen, 1991). It is the first two aspects that are of interest in this paper, here it is suggested that social expectations and pressures include implicit social signals transmitted via the media. These are in turn interpreted, discussed and re-interpreted via social interaction, as part of the individual’s process of sense making about the enterprise environment. This then affects the attractiveness of the action, and whether the individual sees the idea of business creation as desirable and whether he or she feels they can achieve the processes perceived as being involved or possess the qualities perceived as being necessary for success.
4. Making sense of enterprise In deriving meaning, values, beliefs and emotions are necessarily involved. The introduction of emotion relates to the way in which values and beliefs are formed, the way the past is reinvented and the future re-imagined. Although emotion has emerged as a key factor in understanding human beings (Barnes, 2000), there is very little linking emotion with entrepreneurship (Lupton, 1996; Fineman, 2000, 2003; Barbalet, 2002). Indeed, emotion may be seen as marginal rather than central to entrepreneurial action despite it being an inherent component of social relationships with key effects on how values are formed and how concepts are constituted, (Goss, 2005). The representation of values is also under-researched in the entrepreneurial process, with a need to understand not only how values form but also how they can become associated with imagined actions. The part that emotions and values play is demonstrated in language and in images. Language has a key role in the creation of entrepreneurial identity (Bruni et al., 2005). providing a medium not only for communication with others but also for sense-making, for forming and informing the social interaction of participants, together with their experience, values and beliefs (Burr, 2003; Schwandt, 2000). Language provides a route for people to construct ‘reality’ and to identify 152
The media, negative values and graduate enterprise education. Constructing student...
what is represented by such terms as ‘knowledge’, ‘innovation’, ‘entrepreneur’, and ‘business creation’, etc (Hamilton, 2006). Meanings attached to these terms are likely to be based on individual experience and interactions, embodying implicit values and beliefs, although meanings may change as new experiences occur (Schwandt, 2000). Similarly, images have symbolic meanings conveying implicit ideas beyond the immediate subject matter; these are related to culture and tradition and are current and contextual, subject to change and re-interpretation. (Chase-Dunn and Hall, 1997), This symbolism may be deliberate, to convey constructs like “power” and rely on the audience having a. a set of pre-understandings and expectations such that the image needs no explanation. Wade et al. (2003), cite Sturken, et al. (2001) in suggesting that interpreting images requires the spectator to have an understanding the ideology of the image; an awareness of both meaning and interpretation processes; and insights into the consumption of images and cultural enactment. Images and stereotypes of entrepreneurship have been a previous source of discussion, with an established literature on traits and characteristics of entrepreneurs, both good and bad (Kisfalvi, 2002; Lee, 2001; Low and MacMillan, 1988). The development of an “entrepreneurial psychological profile” based on the wide range of studies exploring entrepreneurial traits would describe someone larger than life (Gartner, 1988). Similarly, traditional entrepreneurship literature often views entrepreneurship as the economic battle of a lonely hero (Chowdhury, 2005), despite the benefits identified for team start up and its incidence (Kamm et al., 1990; Weinzimmer, 1997; Birley and Stockley, 2000). Are these approaches reflected in the representation of enterprise in the mass media? Exploratory work by Nicholson and Anderson (2005) of the print media identified how stereotypes altered over time as a creation and re-creation of the myths surrounding entrepreneurial identity. These myths are generally male as seen in, the construction of ideas around ‘entrepreneur’ and not ‘entrepreneuse’ (Hamilton, 2006; Gherardi, 1995) and have a cultural component (Bruni et al., 2005). While the written word supports this gendered approach how do other forms of media represent the entrepreneur and the innovator? One way that this happens is through the transmission of stories, creating and recreating entrepreneurial culture via myth and metaphor despite different contexts, socio-economic needs and values (Nicholson and Anderson, 2005). Data about events is transformed into stories, embodying sense making and meaning by using stereotyping, myth and metaphor (Hall, 1980). Stories are now told and conveyed around the world rather than locally, with interconnections between types of media (TV, films, radio, internet communications, networks and online environments). Their role in constructing meaning are therefore important but this is an area which has been under-researched; they were therefore identified as a key aspect to consider in studying perceptions of enterprise and innovation – especially given their ubiquity in daily life through mobile phone and other technologies.
153
Lynn Martin, Clare Schofield
5. Methodology 5.1. Aim The research aimed: 1. To explore perceptions of entrepreneurship and innovation expressed by students. 2. To identify whether students had made connections between media images and the entrepreneur/ the innovator.
5.2. Sample The research was part of a university-wide study to explore attitudes to enterprise. The trigger for this was the large numbers of international students attending enterprise activities compared with very low numbers of UK nationals, especially those from the region. The sample included 400 students, both undergraduate and postgraduate, with roughly half being international and half UK students. International students were from Africa, India, Pakistan and China while half of the UK students came from the region and the others from regions across the UK. This study involved surveys across three faculties with both undergraduate and postgraduate students. Again, attempts were made to balance the numbers of male and female students in the sample. Although this was true overall with numbers of female s equal to numbers of males, there were difficulties in doing so at a country level (more Pakistani men than women were on programmes for instance)
6. Methods The research comprised a survey with 400 students. The survey was devised by identifying key themes from the literature and key issues for the two funders, the university and the local development agency. The development agency wanted to know why UK students were reluctant to attend enterprise activities; the university wanted to understand whether it was the nature of the activities which had caused the lack of attendance by UK students compared to Asian and African students. The survey was piloted with 20 students to test for ambiguities before it was administered as questionnaires to 400 students to obtain first impressions of enterprise and innovation. This took place outside of classroom settings, individually rather than in groups, with the questionnaire handed out and given in by students folding the survey and putting it into a box at the exit. In this way it was hoped to avoid the halo effect, where the respondent tries to give the answer he or she thinks is expected from the questioner and the effects of group think, where an individual might be swayed by the prevailing mood of the group... Activities also included ranking issues potentially acting as barriers to enterprise (risk, finance etc); identifying and ranking 5 entrepreneurs and 5 innovators and 5 innovative business sectors plus describing or drawing a "picture" of an entrepreneur or an innovator in small groups to identify key aspects. The
154
The media, negative values and graduate enterprise education. Constructing student...
survey was then analysed using appropriate software, SPSS to allow key themes to emerge and to test for relationships where appropriate.
6.1. Findings The research findings are discussed in terms of the aims: 1. To explore perceptions of entrepreneurship and innovation expressed by students. 2. To identify whether students had made connections between media images and the entrepreneur/ the innovator.
6.2. Perceptions The findings from the large survey showed that while international students had positive attitudes to enterprise activities at the university and to the possibility of starting a business, UK-based students did not. This was perhaps unsurprising given the greater engagement with enterprise activities of these international students. However, the reasons cited for non-engagement by UK students did not include finance, risk or other practical difficulties or specifically ‘regional’ factors but the idea of entrepreneurship was “not for people like them” due to the perceived ‘otherness’ of entrepreneurs and innovators. Otherness here included student perceptions of both characteristics – gender, ethnicity – and of character – immoral, cold, flash, unfeeling etc. Participants did however respond more positively to ‘working for yourself or ‘family business’ The results are further discussed in terms of the identification of entrepreneurs and innovators and of innovative sectors or industries. The lists drawn up by participants, of entrepreneurs, innovators and innovative industries, were more uniform than expected, i.e., identifying the same people from the UK and the USA as “innovators” or “entrepreneurs” (see Table 1 and Table 2). The innovative or entrepreneurial people identified were all white and predominantly male. There were differences however, with international students from developing countries being more aware of older US examples of entrepreneurship (J. D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, for instance) which they attributed to their school education. Also, the results might be different if carried out now, since some of the examples given by UK students were from media stories at the time (Philip Green for instance had been in the news and appears in the list of entrepreneurs; Robert Maxwell was also receiving considerable attention due to apparently similar cases to his own in the USA, e.g., Enron). The participants could name 5 entrepreneurs fairly quickly but found naming innovators more difficult (see Table 2). They focused on areas connected with discovery, pure science and the development of technology areas but could often not name individuals in these areas. Thus mobile phone technology was thought to be vital and the innovation connected with it also important but no names emerged in this area. No one suggested that a woman might be involved in developing these items (Table 2). Participants did in fact write “the man/men/guys” who invented for those areas where a name escaped them.
155
Lynn Martin, Clare Schofield Table 1. Entrepreneurial named examples (top ten) Name and source
Inter National
UK
Bill Gates (media) Richard Branson (media) Donald Trump (from TV “The Apprentice”) Henry Ford (school/university) Robert Maxwell (media) Rockefeller (school/university) Lord Sainsbury (media) Rupert Murdoch (media/ Simpsons) Walt Disney (media) Andrew Carnegie (school/university) Peter Jones (from TV Dragons Den) “Stelios” Stelios Haji-Ioannou (media) Philip Green (media) Alan Sugar (from TV “The Apprentice”)
1 3 5 2 0 4 0 9 6 7 0 10 0 8
1 2 10 0 3 0 5 4 5 0 7 8 6 9 Money, risk-taking, success, power, cold, ruthless,
Associated words
Money, success, fame, influence power
Table 2. Innovator names Name and source Einstein (school/university) Marconi (school/university) Bill Gates (media) Henry Ford (school/university) James Dyson (media) Pasteur (school/university) Charles Dunstone (Carphone Warehouse) (media) “The man who”: Nokia, mobile phone technology (media) – created the internet (media) – created space technology / rockets / aerospace technology (school/university) discovered radiation/ nuclear bomb (school/ university) Dolly the Sheep (media) / biotechnology / cloning Associated words
156
Inter National
National
1 6 2
1 0 9
0 8
6 0 7
4
2
3
3
5
10
7
8
10
4
Success, science, fame, discovery, creative,
Research, science, technology
The media, negative values and graduate enterprise education. Constructing student...
Table 3. Comparative choices – innovative, entrepreneurial occupations/industries/business sectors ranked by participants Aerospace Automotive Nanotechnology Biotechnology IT Mobile Associated words
International
National
4 5 1 2 3 6 Manufacturing, high technology, knowledge, multi-national firms
3 4 6 2 5 1 Communications, mobile phone, technology, gene technology, risk taker, large firms
Also innovation and innovators were associated firmly with research and early discovery of ideas and to have no direct links to money, power etc which were seen as firmly involved in entrepreneurship. Thus it seemed, from participants’ perspectives, innovation was not connected with the development of wealth, although it was seen as potentially creative and also interesting – if this was your particular topic area for study. The matching of statements with industries or business sectors also led to some interesting results. Hairdressing, cosmetics, service sectors connected with lifestyles, financial and professional services were felt to be outside of enterprise and innovation. So which industries were defined as innovative? As shown in Table 3, Manufacturing and engineering associated with high technology were all identified as innovative, ‘entrepreneurial’ and ‘likely to bring success’ or ‘giving competitive advantage’ in different exercises with the three different groups. The car industry, space and aeronautics figured most often, with technology seen as the underlying component. These may be considered to be traditionally male-dominated industries and business sectors. Those normally associated with female enterprise were not seen as “real” business sectors. As Tables 4 and 5 illustrate, the language used to describe innovators and entrepreneurs was more strongly negative than positive. UK-based students did not identify with the entrepreneur or the innovator but international students did, Table 4. Words associated with an entrepreneur / desirability International General Positive Negative Desirability of being an entrepreneur
National
Powerful, successful, wealthy Wealthy Able to change things, have power / Wealthy, able to choose lifestyle influence, determined Ruthless, anti-social/eccentric, not Ruthless, selfish, opinionated, superspiritual, superficial, materialistic ficial, materialistic Very
Not at all
157
Lynn Martin, Clare Schofield
despite seeing enterprise in negative terms. International students explained that if that was how you had to be, then that was what they would do. Given circumstances in their home country, they would do "what it takes" to try to be like the people they saw as role models, even if they were ruthless and lacking morals. Although language differed, images were similar.
7. Media impacts Participants attributed their ideas to the media, especially sourcing information from the Internet (various activities such as Wikipedia, social networks etc) as their main source, with TV and films as secondary sources. The internet and TV entertainment sites also provided useful sources. Print media was not cited by the students from the UK, although some of the non-UK students cited The (UK) Times as a source of confirmation of stories trailed on the net. Perceptions of the term “entrepreneur” were often negative and linked in the minds of the participants with “sharp practice” and with adjectives such as “ruthless” “unpleasant” “selfish” while the TV programmes, such as ‘Dragons Den’ and ‘The Apprentice’ syndicated worldwide and recognizable across country boundaries, were cited as being “how entrepreneurs work”. The image described and summarised as ‘entrepreneur’ were of a lone, sharp suited character with big car etc. – the only women described here were described as “trophy girlfriends”. The description for both entrepreneur and innovator started with clothing and possessions, with pictures drawn focussing on these areas. Ethnicity and gender rarely described in words but emerged consistently across pictures. As can be seen from Table 5, the desirability of being an entrepreneur or an innovator was low. Perceptions of the term “innovator” were also negative but in a different way, as seen in Table 5. Although also characterised as white and male, here they were pictured as ‘geeks’, unattractive, with no hair or strange hair and thick spectacles. In the minds of the participants, this was linked to “science” with the “Back to the future” or James Bond scenarios fuelling the view of the “mad scientist”. Women did not appear in these pictures at all although one or two remembered “Scully” from the X files as being a female scientist here. Innovators were surrounded by semi-scientific images, test tubes etc., but clearly Table 5. Words associated with an innovator / desirability International General Positive Negative Desirability of being an entrepreneur
158
Successful / scientific / technological Creative, discover new things, change the way things work
National
Creative / scientific Interesting if science / technology is your thing Anti-social / eccentric, nerd, not Antisocial/eccentric, not spiritual, supersocially successful, wild ideas / ficial, materialistic irresponsible Somewhat Not at all, Not attractive but necessary really my last resort/only if Important in my homeland nothing else at all came along
The media, negative values and graduate enterprise education. Constructing student...
didn’t ‘get the girl’ in the same way the entrepreneur might do. The connections between science and innovation were implicit, and came out most strongly in this part of the research exercise, with the innovator still firmly identified with the inventor and invention rather than being involved in commercialisation or any aspect of business.
8. Conclusions and recommendations This study was conducted to explore perceptions of entrepreneurship and innovation expressed by students and to identify whether students had made connections between media images and the entrepreneur/ the innovator. The individual brought his or her background experience, education etc, and personal characteristics into this process together with their relationships with others. International students felt similarly negative about some of the imputed qualities of entrepreneurs but still wanted to be entrepreneurs to overcome economic hardships at home. The perceptions of entrepreneurship held by the UK students questioned showed a disconnect from the way the university offered programmes. While they felt comfortable with terms such as ‘family business’ or ‘working for yourself ’ they were uncomfortable with the ‘lone hero’ scenario perceived to represent entrepreneurship In this process, the images from TV and films, reinforced via mobile technologies and different online activities, pervaded the meanings and understandings of participants related to entrepreneurs and innovators. This is not to suggest that impacts observed were permanent or that these media influences made up the whole of the understanding of these terms. However, participants themselves realized that their information was provided and ideas were shaped online, through reinforcement of what a concept means in this society across a range of media methods, conveyed through stories, song, image and discussion. We suggest that media images were observed, interpreted, formed and informed through interaction with others, online and offline. However, these were also given extra impacts by the way in which images were repeated in different media. A story about the TV show, the Apprentice was accessed via the search engine, discussed online via forums, through 'fans' etc on Facebook or other means and discussed again in other TV programmes. All this could be accessed via computer or mobile technology in most locations during the day or night. This research needs more widespread and varied testing in different locales and contexts and with more in-depth qualitative components. However, from these findings, there are clear indications that both enterprise and innovation – and related activities – are still seen in terms of white, masculine images, not only in terms of “who does enterprise / innovation” but also in terms of “how enterprise / innovation is done” and that this is also reflected in participants’ views not only of who an entrepreneur and innovator are but also of what constitutes an innovative industry or business sector.
159
Lynn Martin, Clare Schofield
This was a snapshot survey representing students’ view but it is likely to differ over time to reflect life course stages and changes in popular culture. However, by participants interpreting these images as ‘reality’, or ‘normality’ they also help to form and change cultural norms as part of a wider process. A positivistic approach to entrepreneurial identity formation omits the role of attributed values and beliefs in the way in which individuals imagine themselves as carrying out a role (Trevelyan, 2009). To become an entrepreneur, an individual first forms a view of what that sort of person would be like. The media allows interpretation and reinterpretation of what this means. Our argument is that the media has pervasive underlying effects on the construction of meaning around enterprise and innovation which works in this process without the awareness of the individual as to its effects. On a practical basis the image of the entrepreneur as white and male across cultures and genders is something that is implicit, and needs more subtle means so that new myths and metaphors can arise including the entrepreneur as team member as black man, as older woman, etc. New myths or metaphors may need to be created to allow recognition of their contribution to the UK or regional economy, their existence in a complex world, how they started and how they operate, their values and belief systems. Whether or not this reflects ‘reality’ as seen in numbers of white men owning a business is not in question here. The students derived their frame of reference from the media. Media images of enterprise involved stereotypical views of enterprise as white, sharp-suited males while “innovators” were equated with scientists – hence also seen as white, white-coated males. These findings have key implications for those making and implementing policy in entrepreneurship, innovation and graduate enterprise education. The way programmes and initiatives are ‘sold’ may have significant effects on take-up, if the language and images only serve to reinforce barriers. The often-expressed need for more female entrepreneurs or for those from specific ethnic groups to participate in enterprise may be strongly effected by such factors. Here more research is indicated to identify the matrix of implicit and explicit factors underlying the formation of entrepreneurial identity. The study also shows the pervasive power of the reinforcement of images emerging from the Internet, television and cinema. The images onscreen embedded in perceptions of ‘how entrepreneurs act’, affecting individual aspirations to emulate these people. Here respondents ascribed value systems to the characters shown, commenting on their own values and how different they were to those they ascribed to the character portrayed. The association of negative values and images with enterprise are likely to have a significant effect on levels of entrepreneurial ambition and intent and the formation of entrepreneurial identity. This work has taken a new route not only in exploring reasons for non-engagement in enterprise but also in exploring ways to address these through the use of reflected image via technology. Wade et al. (2003) suggest that it is vital to understand the far-reaching implications of communications through visual media and their impacts on the social construction of entrepreneurship identity.
160
The media, negative values and graduate enterprise education. Constructing student...
We believe that our research has begun to explore this process but that this is an under-researched area in great need of further attention.
References Ajzen I., 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–210. Bandura A., 1997. Self-Efficiency; the exercise of control. Freeman Press, New York. Barbalet J., 2002. Emotions and Society. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Barnes S.B., 2000. Understanding Agency: Social Theory and Responsible Action. Sage Publications Inc. Berglund H., 2005. Researching entrepreneurship as lived experience. In: J. Ulhoi, H. Neergaard (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar. Birley S., Stockley S., 2000. Entrepreneurial Teams and Venture Growth. In: D.L. Sexton, H. Landström (eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Blackwell, Oxford. Bruni A., Gherardi S., Poggio B., 2005. Gender and Entrepreneurship: An Ethnographical Approach. Routledge, London. Burr V., 2003. Social Constructionism. 2nd Ed. Routledge, London. Chase-Dunn C., Hall T.D., 1997. Rise and demise. Comparing World Systems. Westview Press. Chowdhury S., 2005. Demographic diversity for building an effective entrepreneurial team: is it important? Journal of Business Venturing 20: 727–746. Devins D., Gold J., 2002. Social Constructionism; A Theoretical Framework to Underpin Support for the Development of Managers in SMEs? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 9, 4: 111–119. European Commission, 2003. Entrepreneurship in Europe, Green Paper. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels Fineman S., 2000. Emotion in organizations (2nd Ed.). Sage, London. Fletcher D.E., 2006. Entrepreneurial processes and the social construction of opportunity. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 18, 5. Fuller T., Warren L., Argyle P., 2005. Towards a complex explanation of innovation as order creation through emergence. Paper presented at the Complexity Science and Society Conference, Liverpool, 2005. Gartner W.B., 1988. Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question? American Journal of Small Business 12, 4: 11–32. Gherardi S., 1995. Gender, Symbolism and Organizational Cultures, Sage, London. Goss D., 2005. Entrepreneurship and ‘the social’: Towards a deference-emotion theory. Human Relations 58: 617–636. Greenbank P., 2006. Starting up in business: An examination of the decision-making process. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 7, 3: 149–169 (21). Hall S., 1980. Recent developments in theories of language and ideology: a critical note. In culture, media, language. Working papers in Cultural Studies 1972–79. Hutchinson&Co., London. Hamilton E., 2006. Whose story is it anyway? Narrative accounts of the role of women in founding and establishing a family businesses. International Small Business Journal, June, 24, 253–271.
161
Lynn Martin, Clare Schofield Hannon P., Pittaway L., 2006. Graduate Entrepreneurship in the UK: Defining a Research and Education Policy Framework. Available at: http://www.ncge.org.uk/communities/files/ biblio606.pdf. Henry C., Hill F., Leitch C., 2003. Entrepreneurship Education and Training. Aldershot, Ashgate. Kamm J.B., Shuman J.C., Seeger J.A., Nurick A.J., 1990. Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: a research agenda. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 14, 4: 7–17. Kisfalvi V., 2002. The entrepreneur’s character, life issues, and strategy making: a field study. Journal of Business Venturing 17, 5: 489–518. Latham D., 1999. Entrepreneurship Action Plan for Wales – Strategy Document: The Sky is the Limit. National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff. Lee D.Y., Tsang E.W.K., 2001. The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and network activities on venture growth. Journal of Management Studies 38, 4: 583–598. Locke E.A., Fredrick E., Lee C., Bobko P., 1984. Effects of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 69: 241–151. Low M., MacMillan I., 1988. Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges. Journal of Management 35: 139–161. Lupton D., 1996. The Emotional Self: A Sociocultural Exploration. Sage, London. Martin L.M., Warren-Smith I., Scott J.M., Roper S., 2008. Boards of directors and Gender Diversity in UK Companies. Gender in Management: an International Journal 23, 3: 194–208. Martin L.M., 2010. Routes to enterprise for female SET entrepreneurs, Chapter 5. (In:) S. Marlow, P. Wynarczyk (eds.), First ISBE Book. Science and Entrepreneurship. Routledge. McKeown J., Millman C., Reddy S., Smith K., Martin L.M., 2006. Graduate entrepreneurship education in the United Kingdom. Education and Training 48, 8/9: 597–613. Miclea M., 2004. Learning to do’ as a pillar of education and its links to entrepreneurial studies in higher education: European contexts and approaches. Higher Education in Europe 29: 221–231. Nabi G., Holden R., Walmsley A., Harte V., Jameson S., Kyriakidou N., Price A., 2006. Career-Making: Graduating into Self-Employment, NCGE Report. http://www.ncge.org.uk/ communities/bibliodetail.php?id=623&comid=86&type=report).\ Nicholson L., Anderson A.R., 2005. News and Nuances of the Entrepreneurial Myth and Metaphor: Linguistic Games in Entrepreneurial Sense-Making and Sense-Giving. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29, 2: 153–172. Prowess, 2007. The state of women’s enterprise in the UK. http://www.prowess.org.uk/publications.htm. Rae D., 2002. Entrepreneurial emergence: A narrative study of entrepreneurial learning in independently owned media businesses. Entrepreneurship and Innovation 3, 1: 53–59. Rotefoss B., Kolvereid L., 2005. Aspiring nascent and fledgling entrepreneurship: An investigation of the business start-up process. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 17, 2: 109–127. Schwandt T.A., 2000. Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In) N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Sage, London, pp. 189–213. Segal G., Borgia D., Schoenfeld J., 2005. The motivation to become an entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 11, 1: 42–57. Shapero A., 1982. Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In: C. Kent, D. Sexton, K. Vesper (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship 24: 72–90. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Spinosa C., Flores F., Dreyfus H., 1997. Disclosing New Worlds. MIT Press, London.
162
The media, negative values and graduate enterprise education. Constructing student...
Stajkovic A.D., Luthans F., 1998. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 124: 240–261. Trevelyan R., 2009. Entrepreneurial attitudes and action in new venture development. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 10, 1: 21–32. Wade G., Smith R., Anderson A.R., 2003. Becoming, Being and Belonging Entrepreneurial Establishment: Alternative views of the social construction of entrepreneurship. Manchester Metropolitan University Business School Working paper Series WP03/17, December. Weinzimmer L.G., 1997. Top Management Team Correlates of Organizational Growth in a Small Business Context: A Comparative Study. Journal of Small Business Management 35: 1–9.
Authors’ address:
Lynn Martin, PhD Clare Schofield, PhD Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Minshull Building, 47–49 Charlton Street, Manchester, M13FY, UK e-mails:
[email protected],
[email protected]
Cultural aspects for creative and powerful entrepreneurs: the experience of Austria Alexandra Sindler
Summary: To understand the behaviour of the members, structures, processes, aims and strategies of an organization, it is necessary to define and analyse the vision of an organization and to focus on the characteristics of its culture. This chapter focuses in particular on perceptible factors such as artefacts, true beliefs and values, as well as the basic assumptions of the organisational culture that are crucial for this study, to create a model of a creative working culture. Based on a qualitative approach, interviews with 39 entrepreneurs from creative fields are undertaken to identify the critical aspects that support creative and powerful working-styles. Key words: organization culture, creativity, entrepreneurship JEL codes: I23, L26, M13
If you know the genesis of an organizational culture, you can manipulate it along creative lines. Culture is the result of a complex group of learning process based on the interplay of various factors. These factors influence our way of thinking and acting within an organization. Some critical elements of culture are as follows: culture implies a certain degree of structural stability in the organization; culture is the deepest, often unconscious part of group mentality; culture is pervasive; culture implies that the rituals, values, atmosphere, and behaviour are part of a coherent whole. To define and analyse the content of the organizational culture is the basis for better understanding the behaviour of its members, structures, processes, aims and strategies. In particular this refers to: 1. Experiences in the past. Which factors of success have decisively influenced the company ’s corporate culture? Which weaknesses have been identified?
165
Alexandra Sindler
Any future goal requires a strong foundation of true and clearly communicated facts. 2. Noticeable factors from its own culture with reference to artefacts, openly communicated values, and assumptions. Such noticeable factors of organizational culture are especially important for this study – to create a model of a creative working culture:
1. Levels of cultural environment From the outside a cultural environment consists of various levels, which must be uncovered and arranged (Schein, 2004). This study mainly focuses on innovation driven enterprises in the creative field that have existed for longer than three years. The complex model of a creative working culture introduced in this paper is based on a scientific approach that integrates a broad range of organizational cultural aspects. The integration of the scientific discourse with the results of interviews with 39 entrepreneurs
artefacts
values
assumptions
Picture 1. Levels of Culture
Source: Schein E.H., 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd ed. Wiley Publishers, New York. – Dt. Organisationskultur. The Ed Schein Corporate Culture Survival Guide, Bergisch Gladbach: EHP 2003, p. 26.
166
Cultural aspects for creative and powerful entrepreneurs: the experience of Austria
from the Styrian creativity network, lead to a model for creative working cultures with implications for various branches.
2. Level of artefacts Artefacts include for example the visible behaviour of its members, organizational structure and processes as well as their visible products; all the phenomena that one sees, hears and feels. The following results of the interviews show the central cultural aspects for a creative working culture on the level of artefacts.
2.1. Transparency and open communication A hundred years ago holding a conversation was a form of art mastered only by the aristocracy. It was of great importance and people were taught how to do so. For creative working environments the ability to communicate is just as important to the success of an organisation. For example: to follow a subject matter through, to analyse it without judging others, to make connections, to exchange views, to take time and be able to listen to others, etc. Today many people are pressured by the need to succeed and be high on the corporate ladder. It is no rarity that those in key positions retain information so that others make mistakes so that they themselves can look good (interview 2). In addition inter-team communication can sometimes massively influence the progress of a project. Frequently, more energy is wasted on unnecessary conflicts than on the actual project itself (interview 6). Distractions interrupt the flow of work and it can take hours until full concentration is achieved again and the work can continue. Perceived challenges with well meant questions such as “What are you doing?”, “What do you need it for?” (interview 1), and the resulting situations, can be problematic. Respect for others and their work forms the foundation for a good conversational environment, which should be created at all levels of the organisation. However, it is still the case that truth is not what is said but what is understood. Increasingly, however, this is interpreted on the basis of differing world-views and less on the basis of universal truths.
2.2. Flat hierarchies When everybody has to take responsibility then mutual co-operation is required. Respect towards other people, with both their positive and negative views and enthusiasm for their work, gives a feeling of recognition and acceptance. In such an environment critical remarks are transformed into a constructive processes. Agreements on goal-setting, transparent communication and honest expressions of feeling create trust and lead to creative solutions. Thus “first build a stable and balanced personality before leading others,” (interview 12).
2.3. Responsible activities Committed and capable employees enjoy the full trust of their superiors and colleagues. “Each person can contribute something particularly well and the corporation should take this into account and encourage it,” (interview 34). “I strive
167
Alexandra Sindler
to strengthen strong points, not to eliminate weak ones.” This is also a long-term process (interview 3). Mutual trust is important. “Management must be able to rely on colleagues,” (interview 7). “It is therefore helpful when responsibility is delegated at the right time and employees can grow into their task,” (interview 28). “Creativity grows with confidence in oneself,” (interview 9). Recognition and trust “can let people grow beyond themselves,”(interview 28).
2.4. Creative leadership through experience This is a process of mutual inspiration and motivation, out of which work results that is unique, functional and meaningful for society.
2.5. An exciting environment Only through exciting activities and inspiring team members can challenges be met at the highest energy level. “An environment which strengthens work is particularly motivational,” (interview 21).
2.6. Respecting colleagues at work When people meet each other at the same level, colleagues should not be seen as paid enemies nor competitors as powers that go to war against each other.
2.7. Developments that bear fruit “The deeper I delve into a firm, the more thrilled I become,” (interview 17). “Depth is important,” (interview 13). “Often it is good to let go of an existing picture and look for the essence of the matter,” (interview 41). This type of analysis helps to prepare the ground for inventions, discoveries and creations to take root and mature. The really great inventors and scientists are prepared to wait until the time is right when all the parts come together to make the whole and their creations display sustainable effects.
2.8. The strengths of employees High expectations, opportunities for further education and training, targeted recognition, responsibility and fair remuneration are factors which promote the creation of new ideas. They work against the social compulsion to conform, as well as apathy and material success. In this way respect towards superiors can be substantially increased through honest evaluation. “One wants to get on, to see it. One wants to achieve. One’s own personality always plays a role,” (interview 6). “We go beyond ourselves when we are praised,” (interview 28). “It is also important for the working environment that those present are equals,” (interview 36). “To be able to listen and not always wanting to be right” (interview 10), promotes mutual respect.
3. The level of openly communicated values Espoused beliefs and values have to be consistent within themselves and within the whole system. Beliefs and values will predict much of the behaviour that can 168
Cultural aspects for creative and powerful entrepreneurs: the experience of Austria
be observed at the artefacts level. But they also leave large areas of behaviour unexplained. Entrepreneurs emphasised the following values that support creative working styles.
3.1. Great ideas enjoy the highest priority The idea is the highest form of energy. “My most treasured possession is my book of ideas. Each seed of an idea is given a chance to grow,”(interview 13). An inspiring vision always focuses on a great idea. Such clearly connected priorities enable organisation members to take risks and try out new things as long as they serve the common purpose. In many cases new ideas are developed in secret. Their potential for development can thereby be hindered as they cannot be compared with other processes and thereby be improved. Trust, high demands and mutual respect are mostly the forerunners to high creative performance, which is based on brave, new ideas.
3.2. Challenging ideas and goals “Everything that really interests me, I go about in a decisive and excellent manner. Then I achieve my goals easily and not under duress,” (interview 34). “When I follow a goal, everything goes. I only need to get on with it,” (interview 19). “When you start something you should never stand still,” (interview 20). Goal achievement is especially important. To really want to achieve the goal. In many cases personal planning is missing (interview 1). Many simply accept the current situation without working on alternative goals. Here, “problem-finding is a central point in the goal building process. How can I help individuals and teams to find problems?”
3.3. To embrace criticism Reactions to what has been done offer a huge area for improvement. There is less chance of falling foul of preconceived clichés (interview 17). “A creative environment needs people who express themselves,” (interview 23). Therefore, “respectful, constructive criticism is important. Poison is effective according to the dosage,” (interview 9). Feedback requires the ability to be sensitive. “I can’t let anybody miss out on my own discoveries.”
3.4. Highest requirements Clear priorities are helpful, which allow employees to try out new things and to openly take risks. “Basically, one should be able to deal with risks, otherwise one ought not to be creative,” (interview 23). “To remove a risk means not to do something,” (interview 24). “When you wish to have more than a 50% rate of success, then you have to be prepared to cross new frontiers,” (interview 27). “I have been very risky and have also failed often. Now I am noticeably less risky,” (interview 18). When you follow your dream you will often hear, “You’re not going to risk everything on that crazy idea.” If the end result should be good, then the development process is mostly hard, (interview 26). Do not allow yourself to
169
Alexandra Sindler
be caught up in the fear of others and do nothing. That deception stops us from getting on with it.
3.5. Failure as an integral part of success “I learn from failure. Failure in an experiment is essential,” (interview 3). “We need an environment of failure,” (interview 22). We often fail at things which are difficult to change. “If I’m lucky I fail due to inner feelings which I can still change,” (interview 3). “Failure takes the creative process further,” (interview 15). “Its part of being a person,” (interview 16) “Success and failure are closely inter-related. We need courage to take on challenges,” (interview 14). Also, it is the imperfections of life that one loves.
3.6. People in companies Current developments clearly show that we need competent people who are capable of recognising the overall picture by making connections, to be abstract, to reflect critically, to continually adapt to new situations, to come to decisive conclusions and thereby open perspectives for negotiation. Specialists are required who can master the creative process with all its complexities. Instead of generalists, there are now professionals with multi-layered abilities. It has become difficult with such differentiation to make it clear to people that they are all parts of a large organism. If this consciousness disappears, then our culture fails too.
3.7. Older generations “When elderly people leave a company unexpectedly then a wealth of experience is lost which can never be compensated for by the young,” (interview 29). Also, the opposing generational conflict: “Why should I change anything when it has always worked up till now?” (interview 7). “Our economy has a tendency not to ‘change’ people but to ‘exchange’ them. However, for each and every one of us it is a question of life to be allowed to grow till the day we die,” (interview 31).
4. The level of assumptions Shared basic assumptions form the essence of the organizational culture. In this sense they are similar to Argyris “Theories-in-use” – the implicit assumptions that actually guide behaviour, that tell group members how to perceive, think about, and feel about things (Argyris, 1976). Here are some examples of assumptions. It is quite a challenge to identify them because most of them are made unconsciously. Assumptions were not part of the study, but some examples should give a sense of the complexity surrounding this level of culture.
4.1. Assumptions about nature The western world treats spirit and nature as opposites. Nature is the enemy of man and pulls him down when he strives for God. They do not function in the same way in the oriental world where to live in harmony with nature one must
170
Cultural aspects for creative and powerful entrepreneurs: the experience of Austria
Pic. 2. Hierarchy of social system
decide what is good for the world and lead nature in the correct way. Other cultures Picture 2. Hierarchy of social system deal in a different way with nature. One example is from a talk by an Indian chief in Seattle around 1855: The Earth does not belong to mankind, mankind belongs to the Earth. All things are connected just like the blood that unites us all. Mankind did not weave the fabric of life; he is only a thread within it. When he harms the fabric, he is harming himself. There is only one God. No single person, red or white, can exempt himself. We are in the end all brothers (Campbell, 1994).
4.2. Assumptions about the truth In every culture that people belong to, they develop ideas and assumptions over the course of time which they perceive as true and real. In modern western societies, the things which parents, teachers and others in authority say are thought to be true in the early stages of our lives. Later on in life we learn to trust our own experiences and scientific discoveries. Science with all its tests, statistics and theories can provide proof which we can base our opinions upon, without question!? Alongside this religious and moral values also become manifest in many areas as pragmatic experiences. The question is: What are your decisions based upon? Other assumptions: assumptions about human relationships; assumptions about the spirit of mankind; assumptions about place and time.
5. Aspects of organizational culture Corporate cultures are powerful: They influence our thinking, feelings and the way we act as well as give our daily lives meaning and accountability. The results of these interviews support the need to emphasize the specific cultural aspects that support creative and powerful working styles. If these are considered, the potential discrepancy also disappears about what we could be, what we want to be, what we have to be, (Drucker, 2002). Furthermore, the transparency about individual methods of how to manage challenges, how to communicate and how to deal with conflicts is increased. The result is a flexible
171
Alexandra Sindler
Picture. 3. Establishing a creative working culture Source. Author’s own.
framework that enables scope for action and simultaneously provides orientation for the process of developing a powerful common vision.
References Argyris C., 1976. Increasing Leadership Effectiveness. Wiley, New York. Campbell J., 1994. Die Kraft der Mythen. Artemis & Winkler. Drucker P.F., 2002. Was ist Management – Das Beste aus 50 Jahren. Econ Ullstein List Verlag, München. Schein E.H., 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd ed. Wiley Publishers, New York. – Dt. Organisationskultur. The Ed Schein Corporate Culture Survival Guide, Bergisch Gladbach: EHP 2003.
Author’s address:
Dr. Alexandra Sindler University of Graz, Department of Educational Science, Merangasse 70/II, 8010 Graz, Austria e-mail:
[email protected]
Environmental determinants of entrepreneurship, regional development, and education...
Environmental determinants of entrepreneurship, regional development, and education in Portuguese NUT3 regions Fernando Gaspar
Summary: The main purpose of this research is to identify environmental conditions that can be used to improve entrepreneurship. This will be done by studying new firm creation across Portuguese NUT3 regions. The situation of entrepreneurship in Portugal is analysed using data available from GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor), and new firm creation throughout the NUT3 regions from Portuguese data based on the Ministry of Work and Social Security (MSTT) databases. To try to determine the factors that explain the differences found between these regions, a simple analysis of regression is developed, following earlier studies. From the results, political recommendations can be developed for the local entities to stimulate and develop new firm creation. The interior of the country and both sets of islands show a very low level of entrepreneurial activity, even lower than the already low levels registered in the seaside regions. This difference seems to be, in large part, explained by local human capital and local markets. Exports, population density and mortgages also seem to play an important role. This should guide the policies adopted by local authorities if they are to develop entrepreneurship. In view of the low levels of entrepreneurial activity registered in the country, conclusions are proposed. These conclusions show that this is a highly asymmetrical country, with a high concentration in coastal regions, and a growing desertification of the interior. The results also show that demand derived factors assume enormous importance in the explanation of the differences between the districts, which must inspire eventual actions by the local entities. Keywords: entrepreneurship, innovation, local authorities, public policies, job creation, regional development JEL codes: I 23, L 26, M 13
173
Fernando Gaspar
1. Introduction Everyone talks about entrepreneurship these days. All politicians speak about developing entrepreneurship, all policy decision makers say they are going to promote it, and all economic journals and magazines have sections about it. Everyone seems to agree that increasing entrepreneurial activity is important for economic growth. The question then becomes how to achieve that goal, something no one seems to know the answer to (Sociedade Portuguesa de Inovação, 2001; Gaspar and Fé de Pinho, 2007; Gaspar and Dias, 2011). One possible way to increase entrepreneurial activity is to create the right environmental conditions (Gaspar and Fé de Pinho, 2007). The search for those conditions has been the purpose of several researchers (Armington and Acs, 2002; Gleave and Mitra, 2007; Acs et al., 2006; Gaspar and Fé de Pinho, 2007; Gaspar and Dias, 2011), because it is recognized that entrepreneurial activity results both from individual decisions and from environmental conditions (Monteiro de Silva et al., 2009). This research uses environmental variables to study new firm creation across Portuguese NUT3 regions with the purpose of identifying regional conditions that increase entrepreneurship. NUT3 regions are the units used by the EU’s statistics authorities and policy makers to divide the territory of the member countries into units that have some coherence and significance (European Parliament and Council Regulation nº 1059/2003, 26-05-2003, published in no JOC L 154 of 21-06-2003). There are 30 NUT3 regions in Portugal with large differences in size, population, wealth, economic development, and a number of other variables, including climate. The results of this research will provide clues about the environmental conditions that can be used to improve entrepreneurship.
2. The importance of entrepreneurship The importance of the study of entrepreneurship is stressed by several authors. For Low, Macmillan (1988) and Gartner (2001), entrepreneurship must be studied, primarily, to explain the role of new companies in economic progress. Another reason pointed out to justify investigation in this area resides in the idea that, besides explaining how markets work, it is also necessary to realize why they work, and for this it is crucial to understand central role of an agent in this whole process: the entrepreneur (Raposo and Silva, 2000). Lambing and Kuehl (2003) contend that this subject must be studied mainly due to the importance that it assumes, and they give us an idea of its dimensions through the growth in the number of new companies created in the United States of America (U.S.A.) over the last forty to fifty years. The importance of the entrepreneur and of the creation of new firms for the economic and social development of a country is pointed out by the Comissão
174
Environmental determinants of entrepreneurship, regional development, and education...
Europeia (2003) as another motive that justifies the investigative effort regarding the phenomenon. Reynolds (1991), offers a more global vision for the phenomenon of entrepreneurship, stating that the entrepreneurial subsystem, while a part of the social and economic system of a society, fulfils two functions; that of arbitrating between subsystems (namely between those supplying finance, innovation and production), and as an integrator of the economic subsystem. For fulfilling such an important role in society, it is not surprising that the entrepreneur is the target of so much attention in the published literature. On the other hand, the significant increase that has been happening in the number of investigations on entrepreneurship is a recognition of the importance that the phenomenon assumes in the development of economies, a fact already underlined by Schumpeter (1942) more than sixty years ago. This importance is recognized not only by investigators but also by the political powers: from the socialist French government, through the conservative governments of the E.U./U.S.A., to the British government; they have all been underlining the strategic importance of entrepreneurship for the economic and social development of their countries (Raposo and Silva, 2000). Henrekson (2002) and Coulter (2003) point out three main reasons behind the explanations given for this phenomenon: the creation of jobs, innovation and the creation of wealth. Reynolds et al. (1994) added a fourth: the setting up of their own enterprises establishes itself as an important career choice that affects the life of millions of people throughout the whole world nowadays. So, by analysing the published literature, it is possible to summarize four principal reasons to justify the importance of the study of entrepreneurship: 1. The creation of jobs, including self-employment. 2. The importance of young enterprises for innovation in the economy. 3. The contribution the creation of enterprises makes to the creation of wealth, as well as to the development of the economy and of society. 4. A career option for a significant part of the workforce. An important contribution for understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth is offered by one of Michael Porter’s conclusions: “Invention and entrepreneurship are at the heart of national advantage,” (Porter, 1990). Besides being important for economic growth, entrepreneurship also assumes particular importance for the development of the economy, especially when this occurs during moments of transformation (Spilling, 1996; Jackson et al., 1999). This importance is due, in great part, to the role assumed by creative destruction in the processes of change within economies, i.e. the creation of new enterprises is going to lead to exclusions from the market and to the shutting down of previously existent companies (Jackson et al., 1999). Finally, Bygrave and Minniti (2000) and Acs and Armington (2002) point out the importance of the positive “externality” resultant from the activity of successful entrepreneurs, through the encouraging effect on others to create their
175
Fernando Gaspar
own firms and through the search for products and services for their new companies, which will lead to the creation of other enterprises generators of wealth in that region. The importance of entrepreneurship is stressed by Shane and Venkataraman (2000) in a different way, when they affirm that it is necessary to study this phenomenon for three reasons: 1. This is the process through which society converts technical information into goods and services available in the markets. 2. It is also the mechanism that discovers and moderates time and space inefficiencies in the functioning of markets. 3. Innovative entrepreneurship is the crucial process in the change and evolution of the economy. All these reasons provide evidence for the considerable importance of entrepreneurship in the development of a region or country, thus justifying this work being undertaken. The results of the present work-study may be particularly important for understanding part of the reasons that explain the low levels of entrepreneurship in Portugal (Carvalho, 2003). Different avenues of research have been taken in recent decades to discover ways of improving entrepreneurship in an economy. One of them was the attempt to identify the environmental variables that influence people’s decision to become an entrepreneur (Monteiro de Silva et al., 2009). An important method for researching these has been the attempt to identify the regional characteristics that contribute to that decision (Masuda, 2006; Armington, Acs, 2002). This avenue of research has been pursued by Gaspar and Dias (due in 2011) by trying to identify best practice in technology interface structures (TIS) and local authorities. Following the same avenue, but from a different angle, Keeble and Walker (1994) tried to explain the variation in new firm creation across England’s regions during the 80s using a set of environmental variables like resident population, availability of capital, specialised labour, size of existing companies, population density and public spending. Audretsch and Keilbach (2004) determined the influence of opportunity availability and entrepreneurial abilities in regional firm creation in Germany. Acs and Armington (2004) focused on the importance of human capital for start-up creation; while Gaspar (2004) plus Gaspar and Fé de Pinho (2007) used diverse environmental variables to study new firm creation across Portuguese regions. All these studies showed promising results, thus justifying this work’s objective. Environmental variables will therefore be used to study the determinants of new firm creation across the Portuguese NUT3 regions.
3. Methodology and data This work compares the Portuguese NUT3 regions, which have large differences in entrepreneurial activity and in overall social and economic conditions. To do 176
Environmental determinants of entrepreneurship, regional development, and education...
this, data on start-up creation was collected from the Ministry of Work and Social Security (MSST) databases. All active companies must submit a yearly list of employees. This database was used to determine how many new companies made that submission for the first time (start-ups) each year in every NUT3 region. It was also used to determine how many companies submitted their list of employees (stock of active existing companies) each year in every NUT3 region. This dataset was constructed especially for this research, using the ministry’s SPSS based databases and following a previous study (Pereirinha, Rodrigues, Madruga 2003). This data is only a proxy for entrepreneurship, since it does not measure a number of entrepreneurial activities which do not involve the creation of new companies; like intrapreneurship, the creation of new social economy units, or the start of new professional activities by independents. Nevertheless, it is very often used in the literature as a proxy (Reynolds et al., 1994; Keeble and Walker, 1994; Gleave and Mitra, 2007). To analyse these data, we are going to follow the bibliography published in similar studies (Reynolds et al., 1994; Keeble and Walker, 1994; Gleave and Mitra, 2007) create two variables. The first derives from simply dividing the number of start-ups by the number of existing enterprises. This will provide a measure of the growth rate in the stock of existing companies. The second derives from doing exactly the same with the active population. The number of start-ups divided by the number of people of an active age (18–65) will provide a measure of people in entrepreneurial activity. To answer the research question, information was gathered from the National Institute of Statistics (INE) on a series of macroeconomic variables that could help explain (and understand) the differences in entrepreneurial activity between NUT3 regions. These datasets were then used in a regression analysis, in an attempt to understand the differences in entrepreneurial activity between these regions. By collecting data on dependent and independent variables from different origins, the colinearity of the sources was avoided.
4. The situation in Portugal To analyse entrepreneurial activity in Portugal, it is useful to compare the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) reports on Portugal. Four were done, in the years 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010. In 2001, Portugal had the 9th lowest level of entrepreneurial activity among the 29 participants, with only 7.1% of the adult population engaged in this activity. Portugal was also one of the countries where the percentage of women involved in entrepreneurial activity was low (Reynolds et al., 2001). In 2004, the situation worsened; Portugal dropping to 4th worst out of 16 countries analysed in that year, with only 4% of the adult population engaged in entrepreneurial activity (Acs et al., 2005).
177
Fernando Gaspar
Fig. 1. GEM's entrepreneurial activity in Portugal
In 2007 a major change occurred, with Portugal becoming the EU’s country with the highest entrepreneurial activity. 8.8% of the adult population was engaged in entrepreneurial activity (Bosma et al., 2007). In 2010 entrepreneurial activity underwent a further drop to a value of 4.5% (Kelley et al., 2010). In 2003, another study (Carvalho 2003) attempted to do a characterization of entrepreneurship activity in Portugal, looking for reasons to explain the very low level of business initiative. By using GEM’s 2001 report (Reynolds et al., 2001) to make comparisons with other countries, she found geographical, historical, educational, cultural and economic reasons to explain the weak expression that the phenomenon registered in Portugal. Sardinha and Carvalho (2003) published a comparison between Portugal, Spain and the countries of the so called Viségrad Group (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia) as to the structural conditions for entrepreneurship, and they concluded that it is in education and promotion that those countries, which entered the European Union in 2004, have an advantage over Portugal.
5. The regional differences In view of the shortage of studies carried out in Portugal on this subject, the present work tries to find the reasons that explain the differences in the creation (and the close) of enterprises across the country. Why is it that some regions reveal a larger entrepreneurial activity than others? Gaspar (2004) showed how the Portuguese NUT3 regions registered very large differences in economic activity, in numbers of existing companies and in numbers of start-ups created yearly, during the nineties.
178
Environmental determinants of entrepreneurship, regional development, and education...
Fig. 2. Start-up creation in 1986–2007
Fig. 3. Stock of existing companies in 2006
179
Fernando Gaspar
Fig. 4. Start-ups created for every 100 existing companies (S/SC) in 2006
This data has now been updated, using a different and previously tested source (Pereirinha et al., 2003), as explained above in the methodology section, with more recent data. The asymmetries persist; and two NUT3 regions, Lisbon and Oporto, still account for a very large percentage (31.18%) of total start-ups created in the country over the last two decades. Almost one third! If we look at the stock of companies operating in each NUT3 region (354,913 companies submitted their list of employees to the ministry of work and social security for the whole country in that year), the difference is not that large. The data shows that the companies are concentrated in Lisbon and Oporto and that this concentration has a tendency to grow, since start-up creation is higher where there already are more enterprises, with very similar percentages. By calculating the data for start-ups per stock of existing companies (S/SC), multiplied by 100, the NUT3 regions show levels of start-up activity that are quite diverse; ranging from 7 new start-ups for every 100 existing companies in “Serra da Estrela”, to 12.95 in the Algarve. The asymmetries look quite different this way and the most dynamic regions are no longer Lisbon and Oporto. A number of other regions (far from these two major economic centres) show higher entrepreneurial activity.
180
Environmental determinants of entrepreneurship, regional development, and education...
Fig. 5. Start-ups created for every 1000 inhabitants (S/P) in 2006
Processing the data to show the number of start-ups created per 1000 inhabitants, the NUT3 regions show results between 23.85 (Península de Setúbal) and 46.45 (Algarve). Once again, the two major centres do not show the highest entrepreneurial activity. Once again, Algarve beats all other regions. These two analyses show, however, very different realities. Some regions show high start-up creation per stock of existent companies (S/SC) and low start-up creation per population (S/SP). The aim of this study is, however, to improve our understanding of the impact environmental variables have on entrepreneurship. The differences between these regions will therefore be used for that purpose.
6. Explaining regional differences To explain the differences between the NUT3 regions, a regressive analysis was performed using the variables described in the next Figure, following similar studies (Pereirinha et al., 2003; Gleave and Mitra, 2007; Gaspar and Fé de Pinho, 2007). A regressive analysis was performed for two models, one using S/SC and the other using S/P as dependent variables.
181
Fernando Gaspar
First of all, one must acknowledge the differences in the explanatory capacity of each model, by analysing the Mortgage’s value per inhabitant R2 values. Percentage of population with university The creation of start-ups per 100 degree existing companies is largely exGDP’s growth plained by these environmental variables (53.2% of the variance being exExports plained by the independent variables). Stock of companies specialized in selling The same thing cannot be said services to companies about the second model. The creation Purchasing power of start-ups per 1000 inhabitants does not seem to be explained by these enPopulation’s density vironmental variables (only 2.3%). Synthetic index of regional development This contradicts earlier research (Reynolds et al., 1994; Keeble and Resident population Walker, 1994), in which both models Fig. 6. List of Explanatory Variables presented similar levels of explanatory capacity for the variance in the dependent variables. Each models’ fit was then analysed for the following issues: –– Linearity – no sign of nonlinear relations between dependent and independent variables appeared in the analysis of partial residual plots and of standardized residuals vs. predicted values for dependent variable plots (Norusis, 1994); –– Independence – absence of autocorrelation: the Durbin-Watson test did not reveal any hint of this (Norusis, 1994); –– Normality – the analysis of the residue histogram and of the plots with observed residuals vs. expected residuals of a normal distribution gave no suspicion of any absence of a normal distribution; –– Equal variance or homoscedasticity – the analysis of studentised residuals plotted against dependent variables normalised predicted values (Pestana, Gageiro, 1998) plus standardised residuals plotted against dependent variables (Norusis, 1994) also gave a good regression model; –– Multicolinearity – tolerance and VIF statistics showed healthy values (above 0, and under 10, respectively), making us believe this was a good model (Montgomery and Peck, 2006). In English
Table 1. Model adjustment Model
Adjusted R square
Std. error of the estimate
S/SC S/P
0.532 0.023
1.03393 0.75183
182
Change statistics R square change
F change
Sig. F change
0.694 0.361
4.285 1.069
0.005 0.432
DurbinWatson 2.144 1.807
Environmental determinants of entrepreneurship, regional development, and education...
Table 2. Regression Coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model
S/SC
S/P
(Constant) Stock of companies specialising in selling services to companies Percentage of population with university degree GDP growth Resident population Purchasing power Exports Synthetic index of regional development Population density Mortgage value per inhabitant (Constant) Stock of companies specialized in selling services to companies Percentage of population with university degree GDP growth Resident population Purchasing power Exports Synthetic index of regional development Population density Mortgage value per inhabitant
-0.752 0.07 0.016 2.162 0.661 -0.311 -0.796 -0.514 -0.38 -0.578 -0.045 0.088 1.872 0.558 -0.711 -0.275 -0.376 -0.301
After this analysis of each models’ fit, the next logical step is to look at the coefficient values, particularly for the first model, whose explanatory value is considerable. Neither of the models showed a consistent picture, as one would expect (enterprises are not created independently of what goes on in the economy), confirming earlier research (Gleave and Mitra, 2007; Gaspar and Fé de Pinho, 2007). In the first model, the creation of start-ups is positively influenced by: –– The academic qualification of the population; –– GDP growth; –– The size of the resident population (largest coefficient); –– The population’s purchasing power. It is negatively influenced by: –– The number of companies selling services to other companies; –– Exports; –– The population density; –– The value of mortgages per capita. These results confirm most of Gleave and Mitra’s (2007) as well as Otto and Fornahl’s (2008) conclusions, particularly the positive influence of human capital (qualifications) and size of population. Human capital has also been revealed as
183
Fernando Gaspar
important in other studies (Acs et al., 2006). Purchasing power’s positive coefficient confirms Masuda (2006). The positive coefficient of GDP growth confirms Kaizhong and Xu’s (2006), Yang and Ying’s (2006), Masuda’s (2006) and Wang’s (2006) conclusions. The negative influence of exports, population density and service companies requires more research to be better understood. The negative coefficient of mortgages seems to indicate that the larger the debt carried by the average household the lower the entrepreneurial activity. Further research is needed to better understand this effect.
7. Conclusions From the above results it seems legitimate to conclude that the model that used as a dependent variable the number of created enterprises divided by the stock of existing companies in each region, presented high levels of explanation in the attempt to explain the differences in the phenomenon of enterprises creation across Portuguese regions. The other model, previously used in the literature, which used the creation of start-ups per inhabitant as a dependent variable, seems to have no correspondence to Portuguese reality. Entrepreneurship in Portugal registers very low levels, probably in great part due to the historical evolution of the economy and of Portuguese society, as well as also being due to the low levels of innovation and of access to knowledge creation (Carvalho, 2003), plus the concentration of economic activity in the two areas of Lisbon and Oporto; however, the results presented in this work show some other NUT3 regions with higher entrepreneurial dynamics. From the regressive analysis regressions performed for this research it seems legitimate to conclude, that in Portugal, start-up creation is largely influenced by environmental factors which vary greatly among NUT3 regions. In this sense, the creation of start-ups will have to be one of the strategic priority objectives for any central or local government interested in the economic and social development of its region or country.
References Acs Z.J., Armington C., 2002. Entrepreneurial Activity and Economic Growth. Obtido em 15 de 07 de 2003, de Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research: www.babson.edu/entrep/ fer/. Acs Z.J., Armington C., 2004. New Firm Survival and Human Capital. Obtido em 12 de 1 de 2005, de REPEC: http://nep.repec.org. Acs Z.J., Arenius P., Hay M., Minniti M., 27 de 5 de 2005. GEM 2004 GLOBAL REPORT. Obtido em 12 de 12 de 2005, de GEM Consortium: http://www.gemconsortium.org/ about.aspx?page=global_reports_2004. Acs Z.J., Armington C., Zhang T., December de 2006. The Determinants of New-firm Survival across Regional Economies. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute’s Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy.
184
Environmental determinants of entrepreneurship, regional development, and education...
Armington C., Acs Z.J., 2002. The Determinants of Regional Variation in New Firm Formation. Regional Studies, 36: 33–45. Audretsch D.B., Keilbach M., 2004. Entrepreneurship Capital: Determinants and Impact. (M. P. Institute, Ed.) Obtido em 15 de 1 de 2005, de REPEC: http://nep.repec.org. Bosma N., Jones K., Autio E., Levie J., 2007. GEM 2007 Executive Report. Obtido em 16 de 12 de 2008, de GEM Consortium: http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1299506455865/GEM_2007_Executive_Report.pdf. Bygrave W., Minniti M., 2000. The Social Dynamics of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24: 25–36. Carvalho L.M., 2003. A Trilogia Empreendedorismo, Portugal e o Futuro. Proceedings das I Jornadas de Gestão e Empreendedorismo da UIFF. Figueira da Foz: Universidade Internacional da Figueira da Foz. Comissão Europeia, 2003. Livro Verde: Espírito Empresarial na Europa. Bruxelas. Coulter M., 2003. Entrepreneurship in Action, 2nd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Gartner W.B., 2001. Is There an Elephant in Entrepreneurship? Blind Assumptions in Theory Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25: 27–39. Gaspar F.C., 2004. Factores Regionais Determinantes da Criação de Empresas. XIV Jornadas Luso-Espanholas de Gestão Científica. Ponta Delgada. Gaspar F.C., Dias J.G., due in 2011. A Comparative Study Of Four West Mediterranean Regions: the role of technology interface structures. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development. Gaspar F.C., Fé de Pinho L., 2007. Environmental determinants of firm creation across Portuguese regions. 30th ISBE – Institute for Small Business, Entrepreneurship Conference. Glasgow. Gleave B., Mitra J., 2007. The Spatial Determinants of Entrepreneurship in the Regions of England, 2000–2004. 30th ISBE – Institute for Small Business, Entrepreneurship Conference. Glasgow. Henrekson M., 2002. Entrepreneurship: A Weak Link in the Welfare State. SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance. Jackson J.E., Klich J., Poznanska K., 1999. Firm Creation and Economic Transitions. Journal of Business Venturing, pp. 427–450. Kaizhong Y., Xu Y., 2006. Regional differences in the development of Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13: 174– 184. Keeble D., Walker S., 1994. New firms, small firms and dead firms: spatial patterns and determinants in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 28: 411–427. Kelley D.J., Bosma N., José A.E., 2010. GEM 2010 Global Report. Obtido em 07 de 03 de 2011, de GEM Consortium: http://www.gemconsortium.org/download.asp?fid=1093 Lambing P.A., Kuehl C.R., 2003. Entrepreneurship, 3rd edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Low M.B., Macmillan I.C., 1988. Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges. Journal of Management, 14: 139–161. Masuda T., Apr de 2006. The Determinants of Latent Entrepreneurship in Japan. Small Business Economics, 26, p. 227. Monteiro de Silva M., Faia Correia M., Autran L., Scholten M., 2009. Cultura nacional e orientação empreendedora: Um estudo comparativo entre Brasil e Portugal. Comportamento Organizacional e Gestão, 14: 65–84. Montgomery D.C., Peck E.A., 2006. Introduction To Linear Regression Analysis, 3Rd. Bombain: Wiley India.
185
Fernando Gaspar Norusis M.J., 1994. Spss for Windows: Base System User’s Guide, Release 6.0 SPSS for Windows 6. 1 Series. New York: Prentice Hall. Otto A., Fornahl D., 2008. Long-term growth determinants of young businesses in Germany. Effects of regional concentration and specialisation. IAB Discussion Paper, 13. Pereirinha J.A., Rodrigues D., Madruga P., 2003. Estudo Sobre a Demografia de Estabelecimentos. Lisboa: Departamento Estudos, Estatística e Planeamento (DEEP) do Ministério da Segurança Social e do Trabalho (MSST). Pestana M.H., Gageiro J.N., 1998. Análise de Dados para Ciências Sociais. Lisboa: Edições Sílabo. Porter M., 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press. Raposo M., Silva M.J., 2000. Entrepreneurship: Uma Nova Área do Pensamento Científico. RGE-Revista de Gestão e Economia, pp. 57–64. Reynolds P.D., 1991. Sociology and Entrepreneurship: Concepts and Contributions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 47–70. Reynolds P.D., Camp S.M., Bygrave W.D., 14 de 11 de 2001. GEM Global 2001 Executive Report. Obtido em 12 de 12 de 2005, de GEM Consortium: http://www.gemconsortium. org/document.aspx?id=160 Reynolds P., Camp M.S., Bygrave W.D., 2001. GEM 2001 Executive Report. London: Kauffman Foundation. Reynolds P., Storey D., Westhead P., 1994. Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies, pp. 443–456. Sardinha B.M., Carvalho L.M., 2003. Posicionamento Estratégico da Península Ibérica Face ao Grupo de Viségrad. Análise das Condições Estruturais para o Empreendedorismo. Proceedings das XIII Jornadas Hispano-Lusas de Gestão Científica. Lugo. Schumpeter J.A., 1942. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: George Allen and Uniwn. Shane S., Venkataraman S., 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. The Academy of Management Review, 25: 217–226. Sociedade Portuguesa de Inovação, 2001. The Fostering of Entrepreneurship in Portugal – Through the Establishment of Collaborations with the United States in Entrepreneurial Training Opportunities and Innovative Business Incubator Processes. Obtido em 15 de 08 de 2004, de http://www.spi.pt/incubators Spilling O.R., 1996. The Entrepreneurial System: On Entrepreneurship in the Context of a Mega-Event. Journal of Business Research, 36: 91–103. Wang S.-W., 2006. Determinants of New Firm Formation in Taiwan. Small Business Economics, 27: 313–321. Yang K., Ying X., 2006. Regional differences in the development of Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(2):
174–184.
Author’s address:
Fernando Gaspar, PhD Instituto Politécnico Santarém, Portugal e-mail:
[email protected]
Educating entrepreneurs – short overview of the most innovative classes, courses... Educating entrepreneurs – short overview of the most innovative classes, courses and programs Mislav Ante Omazić, Rebeka Danijela Vlahov
Summary: Although we are living in a fast changing environment defined by scarce resources, radical transparency, knowledge based economies and non-traditional stakeholders, the way we are teaching entrepreneurship is lagging behind outward reality. In this chapter we offer a brief overview of the most innovative components used in education and ask ourselves the basic question – Is it possible to learn entrepreneurship? Key words: higher education, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs JEL codes: I23, L26, M13
1. Introduction One thing is for sure and that is that we are living in fuzzy, messy, fast changing world. Nobody knows what the world is going to look like in the next 3 years, and it is education that is meant to take us into this future that we cannot even grasp. So this extraordinary unpredictability should be taken into our classrooms. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote in his book, we should start thinking in terms of black instead of white swans (2007). Entrepreneurs are usually defined as visionary thinkers who create new (not) for profit ventures1 in a fast changing environment. In that sense the primary purpose of any education for future entrepreneurs at any university is to develop entrepreneurial capacities that are 1
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Yesterday it was the case that if one wanted to make a difference, one joined a non-profit organisation; and if one wanted to earn money, one launched a business. Today, reality has become multidimensional and fuzzy. More and more non-profit, or as they are called these days, social profit organisations, are being run as fast-growing start-ups; and more traditional companies are being built around social missions and a recognition of their responsibility for tomorrow.
187
Mislav Ante Omazić, Rebeka Danijela Vlahov
compatible with people’s mindset. Entrepreneurship examines how, by whom and with what effects, opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited. Included in this field are studies on the sources of opportunity, the process of discovery, evaluation and opportunity exploitation, as well as the type of individuals who discover, evaluate and exploit these opportunities (Venkataraman, 1997; 2000). Entrepreneurs pursue their dream of developing successful new ventures no matter how low the odds are they will succeed (Dosi and Lovallo, 1997; Baron, 2009); however, although it is agreed that the creation of new companies is the core of entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1985; Low and Abrahamson, 1997; Katz and Gartner, 1988; Aldrich 1999; Delmar and Shane, 2004; 2008), it is first of all the ability to create real value, not create new companies. The resulting companies are simply the means by which entrepreneurs facilitate the capture of created value. Although we have concentrated in this chapter on the concept of risk-takers that love the idea of owning their own business, entrepreneurship is not solely for the risk-inclined who are constantly cooking up new ideas for business ventures. Entrepreneurial education is also targeted at those looking to enter midsize or big companies that are constantly reshaping themselves and creating new projects in order to stay competitive. Another target audience could be those who want to be venture capitalists and would prefer to get involved in the financial risk of funding start-ups and new ventures.
2. Turning failure into success One of the biggest obstacles for all of us in education is to move away from the mass production school model of the 20th century, where we had a one size fits all student, towards a more agile learning environment of constant adaptation and the creation of unique, opportunity based students. Peter Drucker wrote, managing a business always comes back to the human element – no matter how sound the business economics, how careful the analysis, how good the tools (1954). Another obstacle is the general perception that there is a hidden entrepreneur in every student, but some of them need more time to wake up. This is especially a problem in universities where entrepreneurship is not sufficiently integrated into university curricula and there is no pre-selection for possible students, i.e. future entrepreneurs. Indeed is it necessary to make entrepreneurship education accessible to all students? Are not entrepreneurs by definition unique? One thing is for sure, innovative business ideas did arise from university benches; meaning as the output of a mixture of technical, scientific, professional and creative studies. There are many examples of this from Google and Facebook to some older student projects such as Virgin, Apple, Microsoft and UPS. In same way it is important to note that co-founders of Microsoft, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, both dropped out of college. And that list of (un)successful dropout entrepreneurs goes way back from America’s first multi-millionaire John Jacob Astor, to the more recent founder of Dell Computers, Michael Dell, and Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange. More recently, Facebook whiz-kid Mark Zuckerberg waved good188
Educating entrepreneurs – short overview of the most innovative classes, courses...
bye to Harvard and headed out to sunny California where he devoted his full attention to one of most successful online ventures of this millennium. In order to prove how education-wise fuzzy things really are, one of Pay Pal’s co-founders, Peter Thiel, instead of hiring graduates from the most elite business schools, is paying 20 of them $100,000 to drop out of college and start their business ventures. This though he himself successfully attended the prestigious Stanford for both his B.A. (philosophy) and Master’s (law) degrees. Some important issues that come to mind are whether it is possible to teach entrepreneurship, as well as if entrepreneurial courses are useful to future entrepreneurs and to what extent? There is big distinction between being taught entrepreneurship and learning entrepreneurship (Coy and Shipley, 2004). There is undoubtedly a certain amount of internal drive and a forward-thinking perspective that will not necessarily come from being in the classroom, but you can definitely learn the tools that will make your start-up as efficient and viable as possible. This kind of education should provide students with the knowledge, skills and motivation to encourage entrepreneurial success in a variety of settings. It should prepare entrepreneurs to be responsible and enterprising by immersing them in a real life experience where they can take risks, manage the results and learn from the outcomes.
3. Innovation is everywhere, but mainly anywhere in the US The key to profitability, growth, and survival is in the continuous creation of new products and services. Innovation must be accepted as a way of life (Sebora et al., 1995). The same thing is true for universities. Nowadays, universities are devising innovative classes that emphasize experience over studying and seek teaching moments in misery, messiness, and unpredictability. Academic concepts like effectuation – emphasising entrepreneurial ingenuity and improvisation – and a new, dynamic approach to business modelling are among the ideas drawing professors toward a fluid style of pedagogy that feels more like life. Often it is life; as students may emerge with embryonic companies in addition to their grades. According to Katz (2003, 2008), there are approximately 2200 entrepreneurship courses offered at 1600 colleges and universities around the world; more than 2000 of them having majors in entrepreneurship and in at least 20 business schools it is a requirement to take an entrepreneurship course as part of the curriculum. The main goal of these courses then is to stimulate the creation of new ventures among students and provide them with the right knowledge and tools to manage their lives once they get into the business world. In this chapter the best entrepreneurship classes, courses and programmes are presented. The first one would be Founders’ Dilemma at Harvard Business School2 where students can learn to anticipate problems with investors and important team members and practice difficult conversations with both. It is de2
http://www.hbs.edu/mba/academics/coursecatalog/1676.html
189
Mislav Ante Omazić, Rebeka Danijela Vlahov
veloped for students who plan to become involved in new ventures in one of three ways: (1) as founders of new ventures, (2) as early advisors, team or board members in a new venture, or (3) as potential investors, customers, partners or acquirers of new ventures. It is designed to help all three groups to prepare for the decisions they will face both before and during their involvement with new ventures. They must develop go-to-market strategies, with corporate executives, veteran entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists helping them weekly. Moreover, it examines the early decisions which have important long-term consequences for founders and their ventures; with these including losing control of ventures, the break-up of the founding team due to tensions between them, plus putting in jeopardy the financial gains from their hard work and innovative ideas. The goal of the course is to help students be much more informed about these long-term consequences before they make the early choices that can lead towards them. The course also arms students with the tools and frameworks with which to assess potential outcomes and avoid common mistakes. Foundations of Management and Entrepreneurship at Babson College,3 is a full-year, introductory course in which student teams invent, develop, launch, manage, and liquidate a business. It exposes first year students to the principles of key business and information systems, vocabulary and techniques. Its learning by doing approach and sensitivity towards social responsibility and ethical behaviour are the core of this course. Students are organized into groups consisting of 25–30 people, arranged into departments that are responsible for developing and implementing an actual business. Students make their case for financing before a faculty board member, which can award up to $3,000 per team. Students are expected to pay back the loan out of sales. The profits that are generated by a student-run business are used to support a charitable project that the business must coordinate. Students are introduced to the central concepts of finance, accounting, management, marketing operations and human resource management. They learn how information systems are used to manage and control business organisations and how to use productivity tools to effectively manage business organisations. This course should develop students’ interpersonal and leadership skills and is used to provide constructive criticism on students’ leadership qualities that in turn will assist them in running their business more effectively. The Technology Entrepreneurship and Commercialisation course, Ohio State,4 tries to build businesses around sophisticated technologies that have not yet found commercial use. This course utilises an entrepreneurial approach as a method for teaching technology commercialisation. Since commercialisation is an interdisciplinary endeavour, the entire cycle (i.e., the entrepreneurial process) of identification, evaluation, strategy development and business plan preparation must be covered. This is most effectively done in an entrepreneurial, real world context. The course is targeted at developing students’ ability to find, evaluate and develop raw technical ideas into commercially viable product concepts and 3 4
http://www3.babson.edu/babson2ndgen/Ugrad/Academics/Curriculum/fme.cfm http://www.cob.ohio-state.edu/departments/management-and-hr/faculty/s.-michael-camp/teaching/
190
Educating entrepreneurs – short overview of the most innovative classes, courses...
build those concepts into businesses. It focuses on strategies and techniques for evaluating technologies for commercial viability and preparing technologies for commercialisation, and includes venture founded start-ups. The pedagogy is sufficiently general that the knowledge and skills are also directly applicable to commercialisation within a corporate environment. Students are trained through effectuation to have an entrepreneurial logic so as to be able to cope with the complexity of the task in an unpredictable and highly uncertain environment and with a relatively short amount of time available. When thinking about programmes that foster entrepreneurial thinking one that comes to mind is the Mayfield Fellows Program at Stanford University,5 which is a nine-month work/study programme designed to develop a theoretical and practical understanding of the techniques for growing technology companies. Here, students can learn leadership and management skills for the successful growth of emerging technology companies by creating a fast-paced and effective learning environment. The course takes students through a range of issues faced by management when building a new enterprise, and includes product and market strategy, venture financing and cash flow management, culture and team building, innovation and creativity, real-time decision making as well as the overall challenges of managing growth and handling adversity. Entrepreneurial Selling at the University of Chicago6 offers an understanding of key phases in the entrepreneurial selling process, the use of a sales toolkit to control a sales strategy for venture firms, identifying the most common failure points in an entrepreneurial sales process and putting to use a set of skills that will serve in any career context. Students are divided into teams of three or four people whose task is to identify a new product or service from an existing business, early-stage or start-up company. At the undergraduate level, the Eller College of Management at Arizona University7 offers an honours track in social entrepreneurship, which includes independent study as well as a course that requires students to formulate viable business ideas based on academic research in the field. During their final semester, students turn these ideas into business plans. The Master’s programme includes a course called Entrepreneurial Principles and Environments, which is aimed at helping entrepreneurs to develop tools to use when presenting start-up ideas to social venture firms. The Launch Pad at the University of Miami8 is a mostly one-on-one study programme in which outside advisers teach aspiring entrepreneurs what they need to know. Students apply by filling out a venture assessment form regarding their business ideas and resource needs and the Launch Pad’s people help refine those ideas. The course mostly consists of one-on-one consultation meetings that provide just in time delivery of resources for projects and businesses from the concept phase through resource acquisition. 7 8 5 6
http://stvp.stanford.edu/teaching/mfp/ http://www.chicagobooth.edu/entrepreneurship/curriculum/courses.aspx http://entrepreneurship.eller.arizona.edu/ http://www.thelaunchpad.org/about-us
191
Mislav Ante Omazić, Rebeka Danijela Vlahov
Sustainable Product and Market Development for Subsistence Marketplaces at the University of Illinois9 is a two semester course including an international field trip, where students identify technologies and develop products for subsistence marketplaces. Each course may be taken separately and targets MBA’s, Master’s students in Engineering and Industrial design as well as those in other areas. Such new product development lab courses are not new; however, what is new about this programme is the pioneering attempt to design a course that focuses on developing products and services to serve the needs of those living in subsistence marketplaces. The courses cover issues from business to engineering. They cover understanding buyers, sellers and the marketplace, including literacy and resource barriers as well as technologies that could be used to develop innovative products, plus issues in product and market development and the nature of the research methods to employ. Venture Investing, courses I and II, at Willamette University10 is also a two semester year long course where the methodology is entirely based on learning through the process of actually financing new ventures, and includes the processes of sourcing, evaluating and closing deals. Ten students are arranged into angel groups and have $100,000 to spend, the money gathered from alumni and other supporters gifts, and returns can be reinvested or used to seed companies started by class members. The objectives of this course are: (1) to master an analysis of the components of a new venture within the framework of real world perspectives, (2) to identify and create different ways of pursuing the objectives of new ventures and utilising their capabilities towards different objectives, (3) to extrapolate these ideas into a strategic path and evaluate that path, (4) to refine students’ ability to communicate positive and negative ideas to others and (5) to understand Macro, Legal and Government issues central to the world of new ventures. NUvention at Northwestern University11 gathers Master’s students from business, medical, law, and engineering schools to form teams that are assigned to surgical specialties which then shadow surgeons through hospitals and clinics, alert for problems they think they can solve. This course involves a close partnership with companies that provide financial and educational support and that have assigned representatives to work with the faculty and students to advise on the curriculum and provide feedback to faculty and students on the innovation developing within the class. Objectives of the course are: (1) understanding how to innovate in the medical technology space, (2) translation of innovations into business opportunities that can become sustainable entities, (3) learning the processes associated with obtaining intellectual property protection and regulatory approval, (4) learning how to create business entities and allocate equity, (5) developing design and prototyping skills to evolve an idea into a product, (6) presenting compelling arguments to convince subject matter experts and financers 9
11 10
http://www.business.illinois.edu/subsistence/teaching/spmdsm.html http://www.willamette.edu/agsm/full-time/curriculum/course_descriptions.htm http://www.cei.northwestern.edu/nuvention/
192
Educating entrepreneurs – short overview of the most innovative classes, courses...
to fund an idea and (7) enhancing students’ team building skills with individuals from diverse professional backgrounds. The educational process of an entrepreneur may begin in the classroom, but it is often the supporting educational context that determines how applicable a course truly is and what it can help entrepreneurial-minded students to achieve. Therefore, it is not important just to have creative, entrepreneurship oriented classes; the whole school should also act as an entrepreneurial venture constantly adapting to a turbulent environment. The combination of the Hoosier Hatchery, an incubator for student businesses; the highly acclaimed Spine Sweat Experience, a senior capstone course; and Indiana University’s12 partnership in Silicon Valley with the largest incubator in the world; positions the Kelley School as one of the most powerful entrepreneurship programmes in the world. After spending months preparing their business plans, the students, who are all spring-semester seniors on the brink of graduation, present their ideas to a panel of entrepreneurs, angel investors, and venture capitalists. The panel decides their grade. Those who get A’s can earn thousands of dollars in reverse scholarship money to cover the past four years of tuition. It is a tempting prize, but those students who do not make the cut, and that is most of them, are not allowed to graduate until the following semester. One professor called the experience “a true lesson in risk-reward”. One interesting case comes from Asia where Multimedia University (MMU),13 Malaysia offers three Undergraduate Entrepreneurship courses: (1) BMM (Honours) majoring in Media Innovation and Entrepreneurship, which prepares students to deal with recent developments by assigning them to top multinational companies as well as computer and digital art, film production and animation companies. Students should be provided with the knowledge, skills and confidence that they require in order to gain innovation skills in electronic and printing media, advertising and media production as well as produce cyberpreneurs and hybrid managers in any industry where multimedia is needed; (2) Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours) (Entrepreneurship), which prepares graduates with entrepreneurial spirit who are able to compete independently in a competitive work-place environment to acquire and employ fundamental principles of business and management, the ability to communicate effectively, technical competence in specialised areas of entrepreneurship, the application of information technology in conventional and e-service businesses, plus carry out professional and ethical responsibilities, synthesise business knowledge, decision making, interpersonal, as well as leadership and entrepreneurial skills, so as to be a multi-skilled human resource executive who demonstrates social, cultural, global and environmental awareness and has developed a healthy mind and enthusiasm towards lifelong learning; (3) Bachelor of Multimedia (Media Innovation and Entrepreneurship) for all students in the Faculty of Management, excluding students from the accountancy unit who are subject to different requirements by the Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA).
12 13
http://www.kelley.indiana.edu/JCEI/ http://www.uniguru.com/studyabroad/malaysia/universities-colleges/multimediauniversitymmu/indian-students-reviews/university-ranking-142551.html
193
Mislav Ante Omazić, Rebeka Danijela Vlahov
In Europe, the situation is slightly different. Activities are in place across Europe, but the efforts are fragmented and often driven by external actors instead of by the education system itself. Champions of entrepreneurship in faculties often have to fight internal battles for support and funding of their activities. Fewer universities in Europe have academic entrepreneurship departments. Also, the majority of entrepreneurship professors in Europe are traditional academics, reflecting long-standing policies and practices (Wilson, 2008). One of the great European examples is the Stockholm School of Entrepreneurship, which offers the study of applied entrepreneurship in interdisciplinary groups with students from different backgrounds. The course is divided into three categories: core courses, context courses and skills courses. Core courses follow the four stages of the venture creation process, from pre-idea to managing a growing business: (1) ideation, (2) planning, (3) execution and (4) growth. Context courses look at a subject in the context of a specific area or industry. Skills courses aim to teach practical techniques covering a variety of skill sets, such as negotiation, financing and future forecasting. The French-based INSEAD, probably the most influential school for MBA in Europe, has a Centre for Social Innovation14 as well as a Social Entrepreneurship Initiative15. Social entrepreneurship is an applied business principle for solving social problems, i.e., the ability to leverage resources which address social problems. It aims to create innovative solutions to immediate social problem and mobilise the ideas as well as capacities, resources and social arrangements which are required for sustainable social transformations (Alvord, Brown and Letts 2004 in Dacin, Dacin, Matear, 2010). Supporting INSEAD’s missions and visions, the INSEAD’s Social Innovation Centre is an inclusive platform for cross-disciplinary research and engagement in the area of social innovation. The Social Entrepreneurship Initiative, which was launched in 2005 and runs each year at both campuses in Fontainebleau and Singapore, has established itself as a most valuable for programme for leading social entrepreneurs and the entry ticket into a valuable life-long network of support and knowledge sharing. More fundamentally, they aim to organize their faculty and students in order to bring academic expertise to bear upon the unique challenges faced by social entrepreneurs.
4. Conclusions There is no developed economy in the World where use of the phrase ‘small business not doing well’ would be a misnomer, since almost everywhere more than 50% of the work force is working there. Therefore educating current and future entrepreneurs is surely becoming one of most important issues in modern society. In education on entrepreneurship, questions are much more important than answers. One thing is for certain, and that is that we should move away from
14 15
http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/centres/isic/index.cfm http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/centres/social_entrepreneurship/index.cfm
194
Educating entrepreneurs – short overview of the most innovative classes, courses...
solution based to risk based educational systems since education in entrepreneurship is not absolutely necessary for people who want to start their own companies. Educators should behave the same. In entrepreneurship classes, students should learn the skills that will take them from initial conception and the design of a business plan; through financing a start-up and managing a growing company; to creating partnerships and strategies. They should be exposed to experience; on top of which entrepreneurial education should question and challenge their attitudes, and influence their value systems, by making clear what their role in society is. Entrepreneurship is not for everybody since it involves a great deal of responsibility that often goes unnoticed in the dramatic success and/or failure stories that inspire wannabe fortune seekers. This explains why entrepreneurship students are grateful for each and every opportunity for practice with a safety net before plunging in head-first. Therefore, good entrepreneurial education systems should offer opportunities to intern at local start-ups; ways and means to connect students with real or virtual mentors and small student-tailored business incubators; as well as easy access to capital from the local banks and/or venture-capital community. As with anything, it is all about practice, and practice makes perfect. Who would know that better than an entrepreneur?
References Buchanan L., 2011. The 10 Best Entrepreneurship Courses of 2011. Inc. magazine 4, http:// www.inc.com/magazine/20110401/the-10-best-entrepreneurship-courses-of-2011_ pagen_1.html. Coy S.P., Shipley M.F., 2004. Entrepreneurs and Educational Choice: Is a College-Educated Entrepreneur a Capable Entrepreneur? Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 16(2): 37–54. Dacin P.A., Dacin T.M., Matear, 2010. Social Entrepreneurship: Why We Don’t Need a New Theory and How We Move Forward From Here, The Academy of Management Perspectives 24(3): 37–57. Drucker P.F., 1954. The Practice of Management. Harper & Row, New York. Edelman L.F., Manolova T.S., Brush C.G., 2008. Entrepreneurship Education: Correspondence Between Practices of Nascent Entrepreneurs and Textbook Prescriptions for Success. Academy of Management Learning & Education 7(1): 56–70. Hmieleski K.M., Baron R.A., 2009. ������������������������������������������������ Entrepreneurs’ optimism and new venture performance: A social cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal 52(3): 473–488 Lissy D., 2000. Goodbye b-school. Harvard Business Review 78(2): 16–17. Sebora T.C., Hartman E.A. Tower C.B., 1995. Educating Entrepreneurs on Innovation: Implications from an Investigation of Small Businesses. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 7(2): 1–14. Shane S., Venkataraman S., 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25(1): 217–226. Sobiechowska P., Maisch M., 2007. ��������������������������������������������������� Work-based learning and continuing professional development. Education & Training 49(3): 182–192. Taleb N.N., 2007. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House, New York.
195
Mislav Ante Omazić, Rebeka Danijela Vlahov Walmsley A., Thomas R., Jameson S., 2006. Surprise and sense making: undergraduate placement experiences in SMEs. Education & Training 48(5): 360–372. Wilson K., 2008. Entrepreneurship education in Europe. Entrepreneurship and higher Education. OECD.
Authors’ address:
Mislav Ante Omazić, PhD Rebeka Danijela Vlahov University of Zagreb, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business Zagreb, J.F. Kennedy Square 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia e-mails:
[email protected];
[email protected]
Biographical notes Biographical notes
Maja Bašić is a teaching and research assistant at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of International Economics, where she holds seminars in International Business and International Entrepreneurship. She is a research assistant on two projects led by prof. Marina Dabić: Managerial tools in a digital enterprise and the EU JP TEMPUS Fostering entrepreneurship in higher education. While currently finishing her MBA thesis, and as a PhD candidate, she does research on entrepreneurship education, planning and regional development; and participates in numerous seminars related to entrepreneurship, technology transfer and innovation. Maja Bašić is fluent in English, speaks German and is a beginner in Spanish. Marina Dabić is a Full Professor of Entrepreneurship and International Business at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business, Croatia. Her research has appeared in a wide variety of journals including the Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of World Business, European Management Journal, Thunderbird Business Review, Management Decision, Journal of Manpower, and others. She is editor of the International Journal of Innovation Systems, Inderscience. Her research areas include entrepreneurship, international business, innovation, management of technology and the impact of innovation on CEE countries. She is a reviewer for the European Science Foundation and Tempus. For her research she has been granted Erasmus and Leonardo scholarships. Currently, she is grant holder of the EU JP TEMPUS Project: Fostering Entrepreneurships in Higher Education – FoSentHE. She has been a grant holder of several EU Projects. In 2004 she was visiting Professor at Strathclyde University, Scotland, sponsored by the EU. María Purificación García is a Professor in the Department of Business and Private Law, at the University of León. She has a PhD in Labour Sciences and her topics of research include labour law, labour risk prevention and entrepre-
197
Biographical notes
neurship education, as reflected in her multiple publications of books, articles in academic journals and international conference papers. In this context, she has participated in many institutional initiatives, training programmes, and research projects about entrepreneurship. Fernando Gaspar, PhD in management (2006), MBA (1987), degree in economics (1986). He is a researcher with CITIS (Universidade Lusíada Lisboa) and Professor Adjunto at the Instituto Politécnico Santarém, Portugal; and lectures on entrepreneurship, marketing and MIS. Current research interests include entrepreneurial intentions, regional determinants of entrepreneurship, as well as venture capital and entrepreneurship. Aleksandra Gaweł, Professor at Poznań University of Economics, Faculty of Management, Poland. PhD and post doctorate in Economics. Lecturer in the areas of: microeconomics, entrepreneurship, business games and human resource management. She is author or co-author of several monographs plus many papers and evaluations relating to entrepreneurship, the business cycle and the labour market, in all over 70. Her research interests include entrepreneurship as an occupational choice, determinants of the start-up process, the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth, the business cycle and the labour market. Pablo Gutiérrez is Professor of Marketing in the Department of Management and Business Economics at the University of León. He has a PhD in Economics and Business, and his research interests are public marketing, the quality of services in public administration, and entrepreneurship. He has participated in several research projects on business education in higher education institutions and is the author of many books and papers published in academic journals and specialized conferences about entrepreneurship. Olivier Hueber holds a PhD in Economics and is Associate Professor at the University of Nice – Sophia Antipolis. He is responsible for two programmes in entrepreneurship (firm creation and business planning). He is currently vice dean in charge of international relations in the university Institute of Technology at Nice – Côte d’Azur (IUT). As a full member of the public research institute GREDEG (UMR 6227, CNRS) in Sophia Antipolis, his topics of research include electronic money in virtual worlds and entrepreneurship. He is also the author of a textbook on economic theory devoted to undergraduate students. Barbara Jankowska, PhD (Economics, International Business); academic teacher (Assistant Professor at Poznań University of Economics); business consultant and clustering expert at the Marshal Office of the Wielkopolska region, Poland; plus author or co-author of 90 articles, chapters and papers on strategic management, international business, business clusters and co-opetition. She has participated in several scientific research projects concerning the strategies of local en198
Biographical notes
terprises towards foreign investors entering the Polish market, the international competitiveness of enterprises in the context of European integration, as well as business clusters and their significance for the international competitiveness of firms. Based on her academic education and business sector experiences (Import Officer) she provides advisory services to companies in the areas of strategic management (strategic plans), international contracting and cooperation. Ana Lanero is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management and Business Economics at the University of León. She has recently finished her PhD in Social Psychology with a thesis on entrepreneurship education in European university contexts. Her research interests are entrepreneurship education, corporate social responsibility and organisational psychology. She has organized and conducted some specific courses aimed at fostering entrepreneurial behaviour among university students. Lynn Martin is Director of the Centre for Enterprise at Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK. An ESRC Third Sector Fellow and an elected fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Commerce and Manufacturing for her work on small firms, she has published a range of research on small business development and entrepreneurship. Current projects include business models in green energy in the UK and India, as well as the interaction, knowledge exchange and knowledge co-creation between university and business. Reda Nausedaite holds an MSc degree in International Business Economics from London City University. Upon completing her degree, she moved to work as a Research Executive in a management consulting company in the UK, with further work as an expert consultant at the European Commission – Humanitarian Aid office, and served as the chairperson of an international NGO. Recently, Reda has started her PhD studies at the ISM University of Management and Economics in the area of entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility; as well as currently having started work as Projects Coordinator at ISM and as a Research Executive at a global autoimmune portfolio agency in London. Mislav Ante Omazić, PhD, was born in 1971 in Zagreb. He studied at two faculties, the Faculty of Economics and Business and the Faculty of Engineering and Machinery, at the University of Zagreb; but ended up in Economics and finished graduate, post-graduate and doctoral programmes there. In 1998 he started work at the Faculty of Economics and Business in Zagreb as Teaching Assistant in the department of Organization and Management, and today is an Assistant Professor teaching a variety of subjects like corporate social responsibility, management, project management, and change management. He has worked on a string of scientific and expert projects for Croatian and international organizations. He is a proud father of two young boys.
199
Biographical notes
Maciej Pietrzykowski, PhD (in Economics), academic teacher (Assistant Professor at Poznań University of Economics), consultant and trainer, member of Project Management Institute, Executive Board member of the foundation “Partners for local Government”, expert for the National Foresight Programme Poland 2020, as well as EU Project Manager. The author of several articles relating to strategic management, development planning and the utilisation of structural funds in Polish communities. Lecturer in the areas of: project management; structural funds; international economics; economic policy; and the EU economy. Research interests include the strategy, development and competitiveness of local government; regional innovation policy; regional knowledge transfer; as well as European Union integration and enlargement. Asta Pundziene, PhD, is a Professor plus Dean of Research and Doctoral Studies at ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania (www.ism.lt). From 1999 to 2003 she was Vice-Director of the Centre for Vocational Education and Research at Vytautas Magnus University, and from 2003 until 2004, National Seconded Expert (END) at the European Training Foundation (ETF) in Turin, Italy. In 2005 Asta Pundziene became a founding Editor of the Baltic Journal of Management http://www.emeraldinsight.com/bjm.htm. She has published more than 25 research papers and participated in a number of international and national research and development projects. Her areas of research interest cover change management including reform of the Higher Education system, career development, and human resources development. Miroslav Rebernik, PhD, is Professor of Business Economics and Entrepreneurship, head of the Department for Entrepreneurship and Business Economics, and director of the Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management at the Faculty of Economics and Business, the University of Maribor, Slovenia. His bibliography contains over 600 bibliographic items. He leads the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor research for Slovenia, the research project Slovenian Entrepreneurship Observatory and the research programme Entrepreneurship for an Innovative Society. He is a member of the ECSB Board of Directors, and engaged in editorial and reviewing boards for the refereed journals Naše gospodarstvo, Business & Economics Review, Journal of Small Business Management and the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing. He teaches courses in entrepreneurship, business economics, company theory, entrepreneurship theory, and international entrepreneurship. Clare Schofield is a Senior Enterprise Fellow in the Centre for Enterprise at Manchester Metropolitan University Business School. Clare’s PhD is in the field of management and she has a decade of experience developing and growing businesses, their staff and their leaders. Her research topics include entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurial learning. She is an IEEP Fellow, HEA Fellow and is the Enterprise Programme Leader having led a range of projects creating and growing SMEs and their leaders. 200
Biographical notes
Alexandra Sindler is Director of the Academy of New Media and Knowledge Transfer at the University of Graz. Fields of research: organisational development, portfolio competence, establishing new working cultures, the development of innovative learning and working-models, as well as cultural and natural ethics. Content of lectures: “vision modelling“, learning cultures, and the management of educational organisations. Karin Širec, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Business Economics and Entrepreneurship, and head of the university level entrepreneurship study programme in the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Maribor, Slovenia. As a member of the Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management she carries out research in the fields of entrepreneurship, business economics, innovation, female entrepreneurship, high-tech entrepreneurship as well as the establishment and growth of companies. She is a co-editor of the scientific monograph Slovenian Entrepreneurship Observatory as well as a representative of a Slovenian research group in the international research project DIANA, which specializes in women’s entrepreneurship research. She is an ECSB Country VP representative. She teaches courses in business economics, dynamic entrepreneurship, and managerial economics. José Luis Vázquez is Professor of Marketing in the Department of Management and Business Economics at the University of León. He has coordinated many institutional programs on entrepreneurship, and currently he manages the Bancaja Chair of Young Entrepreneurship at the University of León. His topics of research include entrepreneurship, public marketing and corporate social responsibility; as reflected in his multiple publications of books, articles in academic journals and conference papers. Rebeka Danijela Vlahov, MA, was born in 1985 in Zagreb. She finished her primary and secondary education in Zaprešić, Velika Gorica and Petrinja, and in 2004, enrolled with the Faculty of Economics and Business as well as the Military Academy in Zagreb. After graduation in 2008, she started to work as a Teaching and Research Assistant in the Department of Organization and Management at the Faculty of Economics and Business, in Zagreb. She finished a postgraduate MBA programme in 2010 and started her PhD studies. Today she teaches management, project management and change management in seminar classes, and participates in a variety of scientific and expert projects.
201