Advances and Challenges in EntrepreneurshipEducationby Jeff Vanevenhoven

Recent global economic crisis has increasingly demanded bold action from organizations. Ifthese organizations fail to respond appropriately, entrepreneurs will develop new meaningfulsolutions to the complex and dynamic needs of the market. Guidance of many of these futureentrepreneurial leaders falls on the shoulders of those in higher education. My goal in this paperis to suggest a shift toward a more enacted approach in the delivery of this guidance. Thissuggestion represents my own interpretation, is not generalizable in all environments, and shouldtherefore be viewed with caution.

Entrepreneurship EducationEntrepreneurship is viewed as a solution to

solving the fast-changing economic demandsacross the globe and has been recognized as apath to sustainable economic development(Birch 1987). As it touches on the dynamics ofa complex, multifaceted, interrelated ecosys-tem, it has commonly surfaced as an issueamong policymakers, educators, and practitio-ners (Matlay and Westhead 2007). Despite therecognition of entrepreneurship in drivingglobal economic development (e.g., Acs andAudretsch 2010) and a large body of previousresearch into elements of entrepreneurshipeducation (Block and Stumpf 1992; Fayolle2005; Honig 2004; Shepherd 2004), many of thelinkages between entrepreneurship educationand entrepreneurship in the “real world”remain largely underspecified.

EntrepreneurshipEducation—EvolvingResearch Challenges

The study of entrepreneurship education hasoften examined the exploration of traits and

characteristics of entrepreneurs (Dyer 1994;McClelland 1987). One of those characteristicsis motivation, and the determinants of motiva-tion have been and continue to be the focus ofmany studies (Shane, Locke, and Collins 2003).Gilad and Levine (1986) made an importantdistinction between push and pull motivation.Pull motivation is used to describe when anindividual is drawn to entrepreneurship. Thepush theory is used to describe when individu-als are drawn away from something towardentrepreneurship. This form of motivation canbe related to the notion of necessity-basedentrepreneurship. Reynolds et al. (2002) intro-duced this concept in the Global Entrepreneur-ship Monitor (GEM) report when explainingthe very limited choices some individuals facein poverty stricken countries.

Some examples of the traits mentioned pre-viously include, for example, an existing familybusiness, level of education, entrepreneurialrole models, or a desire for change (Krueger1993; McMullen and Shepherd 2006). An activetopic of study revolves around opportunity rec-ognition and opportunity-based entrepreneur-ship (Grégoire and Shepherd 2012; Shane

Jeff Vanevenhoven is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of Wisconsin – Whitewater.Address correspondence to: J. Vanevenhoven, Management Department, College of Business and Eco-

nomics, University of Wisconsin – Whitewater, 800 W. Main Street, Whitewater, Wisconsin 53190. E-mail:vanevenj@uww.edu.

Journal of Small Business Management 2013 51(3), pp. 466–470

doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12043

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT466

and Venkataraman 2000). Other topics includethe need for achievement, goal setting, risktolerance, uncertainty tolerance, and self-efficacy. Bandura defines self-efficacy as “con-cerned not with the skills one has but withjudgments of what one can do with whateverskills one possesses” (1986: 391).

A natural next step for entrepreneurship edu-cation research has begun with the study of theeffectiveness of the various contextual methodsemployed with entrepreneurship educationprograms. Recent work has shown contradic-tory findings with positive and negative out-comes in entrepreneurship education beingreported (McNally, Martin, and Kay 2010;Weaver, Dickson, and Solomon 2006). Examplesof a positive outcome are increased optimism(Fayolle, Gailly, and Lassas-Clerc 2006;Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007) and apositive effect on entrepreneurship intentions(Athayde 2009; Galloway and Brown 2002). Atthe same time, examples of a negative outcomeare found in von Graevenitz, Harhoff, andWeber (2010). However, in an interesting twist,the associated negative outcome in vonGraevenitz, Harhoff, and Weber (2010) is alowered intention to create a start-up but foundan associated increase in students’ self-assessedentrepreneurial skills. There is promising recentresearch in this area that shows evidence thatacross a number of contexts, for example, edu-cators lean toward lessons learned from per-sonal startup experience, and there is apropensity to analyze and include key stake-holders when developing curricula (Penaluna,Penaluna, and Jones 2012). The numerous varia-tions in contexts justify the continued calls for acommon language as well as demand furtherstudy of entrepreneurship education outcomes.

EntrepreneurshipEducation—EvolvingTeaching Challenges

Entrepreneurship is a domain of traits thatcan be learned and thus can be taught. In fact,over 25 years have passed since Ronstadt(1987) posed the question of what should betaught and how (it should be taught), yet therestill remains very little agreement on both thespecific elements of and the methods used toteach entrepreneurship (Neck and Greene2011). There is an equally wide variety ofapproaches with surprising little agreement(e.g., Peterman and Kennedy 2003). Moreover,

students learn at different rates, have differentmotivations, start with different bases of knowl-edge and experience, and have access to dif-ferent resource networks. Similarly, educatorshave different discipline specialties, differentlevels of capability, and different resourcenetworks. Notwithstanding the intimidatingvariety of factors leading to the perception ofsuccessful entrepreneurship, entrepreneurialeducation is continuing its increase globally inboth quantity and quality (e.g., Drucker 1985;Henry, Hill, and Leitch 2005; Kuratko 2005).

With the intended goal of a more fundamen-tal understanding of meaningful entrepreneur-ship, Shane (2012) and Eckhardt and Shane(2013) recently introduced the concept of theindividual-opportunity (IO) nexus. Entrepre-neurship education development will be betterinformed on teachable elements based on thisexploration of the complex interaction betweenthe entrepreneur and the opportunity. Thissubjective view of entrepreneurship is furtheremphasized by Garud and Giuliani (2013)when they argue that the entrepreneurial pathof an actor is dynamic and requires continualadjustment in any of the subprocesses of entre-preneurship (i.e., scanning, identification, andevaluation) driving a more individual-levelapproach. Though it is difficult to deduct theappropriate number and order of subprocessesby simple observation, it can be further con-strained by the subjective interpretation ofopportunities by the entrepreneur. It can alsobe similarly limited by the educator and theeducational ecosystem in which the entrepre-neur exists. As such, entrepreneurship educa-tion, in part, must be provided at an individuallevel and there cannot be a generalized optimalprocess that can be introduced into any givenhigher education institution.

When considering this individual-level focusand analyzing an individual entrepreneur, theremay be a unique combination in the currentskill level, the innate skill, the rate of skilladoption, and the “coach-ability” in contrast toother individuals, potentially within the sameentrepreneurship education program. Thoughmost students will benefit greatly from aprogram that can adapt to their individual per-sonal traits and experiences, often they will notrequire the presence of specialists. Theprogram in which the entrepreneur is learningshould strive to provide access to specializedresources but may not need a cadre of in-housespecialists. This serves both the entrepreneur

VANEVENHOVEN 467

and the institution in that specialist skills indemand are as dynamic and fast changing asthe field of entrepreneurship education itself.This approach can simultaneously minimizeresource demand from the institution and maxi-mize the access to various specialist resources.

Another source demanding an examinationon the method we use to educate entrepreneursis the evolution of capital markets. In contrastto a long-established focus of profit maximiza-tion and shareholder value, influential work onstakeholder value creation, Porter and Kramer(2011) helps fuel the drive for fundamental,revolutionary approaches in how we deliveryentrepreneurship education. When it comes torevolutionary change in entrepreneurship edu-cation, much of the newest thought can befound in the social media. True to form, the rateof change can often outpace the temporalprocess of peer reviewed publication. It isimportant to note the process of assessment isoften a requirement of institutions of highereducation, more so for those who are associ-ated with accreditation requirements. Theserevolution and assessment processes do notneed to be mutually exclusive. Many of theassociated learning outcomes (e.g., judgment,critical thinking, financial analysis, and feasibil-ity) measured by the accrediting agencies willnot change, but the method in which wedeliver this education may require transforma-tion. Please see the work of Jill Kickul et al.(2012) for an example of an assessment in atransformational approach offering a blendedvalue framework in social entrepreneurship.

Conclusion and Callfor Mutiny

According to Dale Meyer (2011), the aca-demic field of entrepreneurship is “stalled” duethe use of econometric methodologies and sec-ondary databases that “distance researchersfrom actual people and behaviors that catalyzeentrepreneurs and entrepreneurship” (p. 7).This enacted approach has been suggested asthe best way to address an opportunity (Alvarezand Barney 2004; Baker and Nelson 2005) andreinforces the idea that we need to send ourstudents out into the actual environments thatthey are studying. Furthermore, we not onlyneed to kick students out of the classroom, butwe ourselves also need to get out of our officesand share these experiences directly with ourstudents. This is not continued incrementaladjustments or extensions of existing pedago-

gies but a fundamental transformation of exist-ing models, an intellectual revolution led byfearless educators. On his web presence(http://theinnographer.com/), Alex Brutonshares this philosophy when he states:

I love the idea of comparing what I do towhat doctors do in a teaching hospital.Nobody argues with the important roleof teaching hospitals in society . . . bothfor enabling the life-long learning of resi-dents and doctors, and for keeping theresearch that takes place extremelyfocused on healing patients . . . the workdoctors do helps their patients andimproves the broader knowledge in away that will help other patients. Itwould be quite different if they studiedsick people without also treating them.Like doctors in a teaching hospital, Iargue that teachers of innovation wouldbenefit from more integrated on-the-ground roles as part of their work—helping innovators with the specificchallenges they face . . . I argue thatteachers and researchers of entrepre-neurship would benefit from being anentrepreneur—not from having oncebeen an entrepreneur but from beingone daily as part of or in addition to theirother roles.

This approach does present the risk that aneducator may choose the wrong direction andreduce available resources. There is argument tobe made in maximizing options and delaying thecommitment of decision until more informationis available. In our hyperdynamic environment,however, if educators wait too long for a criticalmass of information, an established history ofcase studies, a direction will be decided byindecision. As the adage states: if you don’tknow where you’re going, any road will get youthere. A commitment to getting students enact-ing opportunities does invite the chance forfailure, criticism, and embarrassment that maynot otherwise be present in the safety of ourclassrooms and offices—but as we teach, if weare to fail, we should fail with magnificence.

ReferencesAcs, Z. J., and D. B. Audretsch, Eds. (2010).

Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: AnInterdisciplinary Survey and Introduction.New York: Springer.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT468

Alvarez, S. A., and J. B. Barney (2004). “Orga-nizing Rent Generation and Appropriation:Toward a Theory of the EntrepreneurialFirm,” Journal of Business Venturing 19(5),621–635.

Athayde, R. (2009). “Measuring EnterprisePotential in Young People,” Entrepreneur-ship Theory and Practice 33(2), 481–500.

Baker, T., and R. E. Nelson (2005). “CreatingSomething from Nothing: Resource Con-struction through Entrepreneurial Brico-lage,” Administrative Science Quarterly50(3), 329–366.

Birch, D. L. (1987). Job Creation in America:How Our Smallest Companies Put theMost People to Work. New York: The FreePress.

Block, Z., and S. A. Stumpf (1992). “Entrepre-neurship Education Research: Experienceand Challenge,” in The State of the Art ofEntrepreneurship. Eds. D. L. Sexton and J. D.Kasarda. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing,17–45.

Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepre-neurship: Practice and Principles. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Dyer, G. W. (1994). “Toward a Theory of Entre-preneurial Careers,” EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 19, 7–7.

Eckhardt, J. T., and S. A. Shane (2013).“Response to the Commentaries: TheIndividual-Opportunity (IO) Nexus Inte-grates Objective and Subjective Aspects ofEntrepreneurship,” Academy of Manage-ment Review 38(1), 160–163.

Fayolle, A. (2005). “Evaluation of Entrepreneur-ship Education: Behavior Performing orIntention Increasing? International Journalof Entrepreneurship and Small Business2(1), 89–98.

Fayolle, A., B. Gailly, and N. Lassas-Clerc(2006). “Assessing the Impact of Entrepre-neurship Education Programs: A New Meth-odology,” Journal of European IndustrialTraining 30(9), 701–720.

Galloway, L., and W. Brown (2002). “Entrepre-neurship Education at University: A Driver inthe Creation of High Growth Firms,” Educa-tion & Training 44, 398–405.

Garud, R., and A. P. Giuliani (2013). “A Narra-tive Perspective on Entrepreneurial Oppor-tunities,” Academy of Management Review38(1), 157–160.

Gilad, B., and P. Levine (1986). “A BehavioralModel of Entrepreneurial Supply,” Journal

of Small Business Management 24(4), 45–53.

von Graevenitz, G., D. Harhoff, and R. Weber(2010). “The Effects of EntrepreneurshipEducation,” Journal of Economic Behavior &Organization 76(1), 90–112.

Grégoire, D. A., and D. A. Shepherd (2012).“Technology-Market Combinations and theIdentification of Entrepreneurial Opportuni-ties: An Investigation of the Opportunity-Individual Nexus,” Academy of ManagementJournal 55(4), 753.

Henry, C., F. Hill, and C. Leitch (2005). “Entre-preneurship Education and Training: CanEntrepreneurship Be Taught? Part 2,” Edu-cation and Training 47, 158–169.

Honig, B. (2004). “Entrepreneurship Education:Toward A Model of Contingency-Based Busi-ness Planning,” Academy of ManagementLearning & Education 3(3), 258–273.

Kickul, J., S. Terjesen, S. Bacq, and M. Griffiths(2012). “Social Business Education: An Inter-view with Nobel Laureate MuhammadYunus,” Academy of Management Learning& Education 11(3), 453–462.

Krueger, N. F. (1993). “The Impact of PriorEntrepreneurial Exposure on Perceptions ofNew Venture Feasibility and Desirability,”Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(1),5–21.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). “The Emergence ofEntrepreneurship Education: Development,Trends, and Challenges,” Entrepreneurship,Theory & Practice 29(5), 577–598.

Matlay, H., and P. Westhead (2007). “Innova-tion and Collaboration in Virtual Teams ofE-Entrepreneurs: Case Evidence from theEuropean Tourism Industry,” The Interna-tional Journal of Entrepreneurship andInnovation 8(1), 29–36.

McClelland, D. C. (1987). “Characteristics ofSuccessful Entrepreneurs,” The Journal ofCreative Behavior 21(3), 219–233.

McMullen, J. S., and D. A. Shepherd (2006).“Entrepreneurial Action and the Role ofUncertainty in the Theory of the Entrepre-neur,” Academy of Management Review31(1), 132–152.

McNally, J. J., B. C. Martin, and M. J. Kay(2010). “Examining the Formation of HumanCapital in Entrepreneurship: A Meta-Analysisof Entrepreneurship Education Outcomes,”Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe Academy of Management. Montreal,Canada.

VANEVENHOVEN 469

Meyer, G. D. (2011). “The Reinvention of Aca-demic Entrepreneurship,” Journal of SmallBusiness Management 49(1), 1–8.

Neck, H. M., and P. G. Greene (2011). “Entre-preneurship Education: Known Worlds andNew Frontiers,” Journal of Small BusinessManagement 49(1), 55–70.

Penaluna, K., A. Penaluna, and C. Jones (2012).“The Context of Enterprise Education:Insights into Current Practices,” Industryand Higher Education 26(3), 163–175.

Peterman, N. E., and J. Kennedy (2003). “Enter-prise Education: Influencing Students’Perceptions of Entrepreneurship,” Entre-preneurship Theory and Practice 28, 129–145.

Porter, M. E., and M. R. Kramer (2011). “TheBig Idea: Creating Shared Value. How toReinvent Capitalism—and Unleash a Waveof Innovation and Growth,” Harvard Busi-ness Review 89(1–2), 62–78.

Reynolds, P. D., S. M. Camp, W. D. Bygrave, E.Autio, and M. Hay (2002). “Global Entrepre-neurship Monitor GEM 2001 SummaryReport,” London Business School andBabson College.

Ronstadt, R. (1987). “The Educated Entrepre-neurs: A New Era of Entrepreneurial Educa-tion Is Beginning,” American Journal ofSmall Business 11(4), 37–53.

Shane, S. (2012). “Reflections on the 2010 AMRDecade Award: Delivering on the Promise ofEntrepreneurship as a Field of Research,”Academy of Management Review 37(1),10–20.

Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman (2000). “ThePromise of Entrepreneurship as a Field ofResearch,” The Academy of ManagementReview 25(1), 217–226.

Shane, S., E. A. Locke, and C. J. Collins (2003).“Entrepreneurial Motivation,” HumanResource Management Review 13(2), 257–279.

Shepherd, D. A. (2004). “Educating Entrepre-neurship Students about Emotion and Learn-ing from Failure,” Academy of ManagementLearning & Education 3(3), 274–287.

Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati, and A. Al-Laham(2007). “Do Entrepreneurship ProgramsRaise Entrepreneurial Intention of Scienceand Engineering Students? The Effect ofLearning, Inspiration and Resources,”Journal of Business Venturing 22(4), 566–591.

Weaver, K. M., P. Dickson, and G. Solomon(2006). “Entrepreneurship and Education:What Is Known and Not Known about theLinks between Education and Entrepreneur-ial Activity,” Small Business Administration1(1), 113–156.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT470