Entrepreneurial competency development in …vcplist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/LIC-kappa-130910.pdfleading to a wide diversity of approaches ... venture as formal part of the

Licentiate Thesis, Martin Lackéus, draft, please do not spread. May 2013

Page 1

Entrepreneurial competency development in education

– A tool‐based approach

Introduction

Entrepreneurial education and learning

Entrepreneurial education is a term encompassing both enterprise education and entrepreneurship

education, two terms that are often causing confusion (Erkkilä, 2000). In Europe, enterprise

education has been defined as focusing more broadly on personal development, mindset, skills and

abilities, whereas entrepreneurship education has been defined to focus more on the specific

context of setting up a venture and becoming self‐employed (QAA, 2012, Mahieu, 2006). In United

States, the only term used is entrepreneurship education (Erkkilä, 2000).

A question within entrepreneurial education that never seems to go out of fashion is “Can

entrepreneurship be taught?”. Many argue that there is enough evidence that entrepreneurship can

be taught (Kuratko, 2005, Gorman et al., 1997, Pittaway and Cope, 2007a). Others argue that

entrepreneurs are primarily born, not made (Nicolaou and Shane, 2009). Some opt for a middle way,

claiming that certain aspects of entrepreneurship cannot be taught, such as self‐confidence,

persistence and energy levels (De Faoite et al., 2003). Others connect the question to assessment in

education, stating that the difficulty lies primarily in measuring the effects of entrepreneurial

education (Martin et al., 2012, Henry et al., 2005). To complicate things further, there is little

agreement on how to define entrepreneurship, which profoundly affects educational objectives,

target audiences, course content design, teaching methods and student assessment procedures,

leading to a wide diversity of approaches (Mwasalwiba, 2010).

In the domain of entrepreneurial learning there is no similar polarized discussion on the

corresponding question “Can entrepreneurship be learned?”. Instead a multitude of empirically

grounded frameworks and models are proposed on how entrepreneurship is learned by individuals

pursuing entrepreneurial endeavors (Rae and Carswell, 2001, Rae, 2005, Pittaway, 2011, Minniti and

Bygrave, 2001, Cope, 2005, Politis, 2005). This domain is however largely disconnected from the

educational arena, and primarily studies on‐the‐job learning, i.e. learning from the experience of

operating a company.

Perspectives of this thesis

This thesis takes a learner perspective on entrepreneurial education, drawing on both the

entrepreneurial education domain and the entrepreneurial learning domain. A basic tenet is that if

entrepreneurship can be informally learned it can also be formally taught (Lange et al., 2011,

Drucker, 1985). Links with the overarching domains of education and learning are established, since

these domains contain valuable theories and models that facilitate understanding and research in

entrepreneurial education and learning (Cope, 2005). A competence perspective is applied with its

emphasis on knowledge, skills and attitudes (Mitchelmore and Rowley, 2010). This allows for a focus

on all three faculties of mind at play in learning, i.e. thought, action and emotion (Hilgard, 1980,

Jarvis, 2006).


Page 2

Some way into this study an insight emerged that a “psychological tools” based approach was helpful

in explaining how entrepreneurial competencies are developed. The concept of tools that facilitate

(mediate) human learning was proposed by Vygotsky in early 20th century (Kozulin and Presseisen,

1995). Some example tools that mediate human learning are teachers (human tools), pencil‐and‐

paper (material tools) and literacy (psychological tools) (ibid). In addition to the more obvious human

and material tools, psychological tools can become equally indispensable in forming the reality of

learners, and are defined by Egan as “things that enable our brain to do cultural work” (Egan, 2008,

p.40) and “the things people think with, not the things they think about” (ibid, p.14).

Purpose and research design

The main purpose of this study has been to investigate how entrepreneurial competency is

developed in education. This has been accomplished by studying ‘venture creation’ based

entrepreneurship programs in higher education where the students are required to start a real‐life

venture as formal part of the curriculum, with an intention to incorporate. These programs

constitute a particularly action‐based educational setting where previous research indicates a high

frequency of developed entrepreneurial competencies (Barr et al., 2009, Ollila and Williams‐

Middleton, 2011). So far 17 such programs have been identified globally, described more in‐depth at

my research blog1. Ten of these programs have been studied more in‐depth, and 13 students at one

of them – Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship – have been followed longitudinally with the purpose

of understanding how they develop entrepreneurial competencies.

To facilitate the research, two research questions have been articulated – RQ1) What mediating

psychological tools are contributing to development of entrepreneurial competencies in

entrepreneurial education? and RQ2) How do these tools mediate development of entrepreneurial

competencies in educational environments?

A qualitative comparative case study approach has been applied, consisting of semi‐structured

individual interviews, focus group interviews, analysis of secondary sources and relating to various

domains of literature. An inductive/abductive approach has been used, labeled as “systematic

combining” by Dubois and Gadde (2002), stressing theory development rather than the theory

generation approach proposed in the ‘grounded theory’ approach (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). Two

major units of analysis have been selected, studying entrepreneurial education programs as well as

individual students of such programs.

Findings

Some propositional mediating psychological tools identified in this research are the venture creation

approach (Ollila and Williams‐Middleton, 2011), the logic of effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001) and the

more general term value creation (Bruyat and Julien, 2001). Viewing these concepts as tools

mediating development of entrepreneurial competencies in accordance with a Vygotskian tradition

has not been proposed before. I posit that if learners manage to integrate these psychological tools

into their cognitive, behavioral and affective structures by following an entrepreneurial education

course or program, this can lead to the formation of a new reality for them, causing permanent and

significant changes in their lives. These tools become part of their natural way of thinking, acting and

1www.chalmers.se/vcplist.


Page 3

feeling, resulting in learners becoming capable of, and perhaps even subconsciously inclined to,

asking themselves questions such as “How can I turn this into a venture?”, “What effects can I create

with my available means?” and “What value can I create here?”. The familiarity with, internalization

(mental acquisition), possession of, and inclination to use such psychological tools in everyday life

can constitute an addition to the current understanding of what constitutes entrepreneurial

competencies and an entrepreneurial mindset.

Some implications

The findings from this study imply that adding value creation goals to curriculum can increase

learners’ motivation and enhance the capacity to develop entrepreneurial competencies. Further,

adding a venture creation program to the curricular offering of a higher education institution can

increase its technology transfer efficiency and its capacity to develop entrepreneurial competencies.

Effectuation has been identified as a method in curriculum design to increase both legitimacy and

efficiency of process‐based, iterative and socially situated learning environments.

Some advice for practitioners have also been developed in this study. Educators aiming to develop

entrepreneurial competencies should try to design a learning environment ripe of uncertainty and

ambiguity where students frequently are able and encouraged to interact with the outside world in a

working environment emphasizing a team‐based approach. These kinds of emotional events and

situations can be considered an explanatory proxy between educational design and developed

entrepreneurial competencies.

This thesis is the result of an explicit focus on interdisciplinary research, bridging between the

domains of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurial learning on the one hand,

and general education and learning on the other hand. This approach has shown capable of surfacing

theoretical perspectives that can shed light on entrepreneurial competency development processes.

There seems to be a lack of such research integrating deeply between these domains. More insights,

concepts and theories from learning and education literature can probably be beneficially

transferred to the entrepreneurial domain in the future if more research of this kind is conducted.

Finally it can be concluded that a psychological tools approach can facilitate understanding of

competency development processes in entrepreneurial education.

Theory

The prim

are; (1) e

(5) educ

view tha

general e

is relying

Figure 1. T

Entrepre

Being en

Gartner

organiza

entrepre

existing

individua

opportu

and Jaril

inside or

(ibid, p.

incorpor

which it

time. En

experien

entrepre

propose

alongsid

y

mary area of

entrepreneu

cation, and in

at entrepren

educational

g upon.

The five areas c

eneurial

ntrepreneuri

(1990) is t

ations that

eneurship do

organization

al, but also t

nity, i.e. the

lo (1990) de

rganizations

23). Bruyat

rating not on

takes place,

ntrepreneurs

nces by inte

eneur causes

s learning fo

e new value

Licentiate The

this thesis i

urial, (2) entr

n that order

neurial educ

setting with

covered in theo

ial can mean

hat entrepre

grow and

oes not have

ns (Shane an

to entrepren

e individual‐o

fine entrepr

‐ pursue op

and Julien

nly the entr

, the entrep

ship is as mu

eracting with

s through his

or the individ

creation.

esis, Martin Lac

s entreprene

repreneurial

r. This is illus

cation canno

in which it is

ory section.

n many thing

eneurship is

create val

e to include

nd Venkatara

neurial oppor

opportunity

eneurship as

pportunities

(2001) use

epreneur, b

reneurial pr

uch about th

h the enviro

s/her actions

dual as an in

ckéus, draft, ple

Page 4

eurial educa

education,

strated in Fi

ot be fully u

s embedded

gs to many

s about ent

lue, either

e the creatio

aman, 2007)

rtunities and

nexus as de

s “a process

without reg

e a constru

but also the

rocess itself

he change an

onment, as

s. Their defin

nherent and

ease do not spre

tion.The are

(3) entrepre

gure 1. This

understood

, and the ge

people. A co

repreneuria

for the p

on of new or

. It is not on

d the relation

escribed by

by which in

gard to the r

uctivist appr

new value c

and the link

nd learning

about the

nition has im

core outcom

ead. May 2013

eas covered i

neurial learn

choice of to

without also

neral proces

ommon con

l individuals

urpose of

rganizations,

nly limited to

n between th

Shane (Shan

dividuals ‐ e

resources the

oach and p

created, the

s between t

that the ind

change and

mplications fo

me of an ent

in this theor

ning, (4) lear

opics is base

o understan

ss of learning

ception acco

s creating in

profit or

, it can also

o the entrep

he individua

ne, 2003). St

either on the

ey currently

propose a d

e environme

these constr

dividual entr

d value crea

or this thesis

trepreneuria

ry section

rning and

ed on the

nding the

g which it

ording to

nnovative

not. But

occur in

reneurial

l and the

tevenson

ir own or

y control”

definition

nt within

ucts over

epreneur

ation the

s, since it

l process


Page 5

Sarasvathy and Venkataraman (2011) argue that viewing entrepreneurship as a subset of economics

or any other sub‐domain entails the risk of committing a logical category mistake, i.e. to allocate

“concepts to logical types to which they do not belong” (Ryle, 1949, p.17). Instead they propose that

we should “reformulate entrepreneurship as a method of human action, … a powerful way of

tackling large and abiding problems at the heart of advancing our species.” (Sarasvathy and

Venkataraman, 2011). They propose that a dominant logic for the entrepreneurial method is

“effectuation”, a concept developed by Sarasvathy (2001) through observing how expert

entrepreneurs think and act. Effectuation is described as an iterative process of decision making and

active commitment seeking that results in creation of new value, where each iteration is started with

questions such as “Who am I?”, “What do I know?” and “Whom do I know?” (Sarasvathy and Dew,

2005). Sarasvathy and colleagues position effectuation as an alternative to an objectivist, linear,

transaction and causal logic based scientific method aiming to uncover general “laws” (Sarasvathy,

2001, Sarasvathy and Dew, 2005, Sarasvathy and Venkataraman, 2011, Venkataraman et al., 2012).

They emphasize the subjectivist and constructivist nature of the entrepreneurial method, and specify

the intersubjective as a key unit of analysis, i.e. emphasizing social relations between people as more

useful for decision making when operating under uncertain conditions. Thus they recognize that

individuals operating under uncertainty in a process of emergence utilize knowledge learned through

the constructivist and progressivist principles outlined in this paper. For this thesis these propositions

by Sarasvathy and colleagues are relevant since they offer an escape from the rationalist bias

prevalent in most educational institutions, instead moving towards a more socially situated

perspective on learning (Lackéus, 2012a, p.10).

Moving now to the domain of educational policy, there are two main definitions of entrepreneurship

– a narrow and a wide definition (QAA, 2012, Mahieu, 2006, Fayolle and Gailly, 2008). The narrow

definition outlines curriculum related to opportunity identification, business development, self‐

employment and venture creation and growth, i.e. being or becoming an entrepreneur. When this

definition is used in education, it is most often termed “entrepreneurship education”. The wide

definition focuses on personal development, creativity, self reliance, imitative taking, action

orientation and other emotional, social and practical skills, i.e. being or becoming entrepreneurial.

When this broader definition is used, it is often termed “enterprise education”. There are not only

differences between individuals in perceptions and practical use, but also regional differences. In

Finland for example, the wide definition described above is termed “internal entrepreneurship”, and

the narrow definition above is termed “external entrepreneurship” (Erkkilä, 2000). In United States

the term “entrepreneurship education” is primarily used, and in United Kingdom the term

“enterprise education” is primarily used (ibid). Erkkilä has proposed the use of the term

“entrepreneurial education”, encompassing both definitions. The potential for confusion around

terms and definitions is substantial, and the three terms described above are used interchangeably in

literature (Mwasalwiba, 2010). Some scholars opt for the longer term “enterprise / entrepreneurship

education” (Pittaway and Cope, 2007b). In this thesis the term “entrepreneurial education” will

primarily be used, and is then encompassing both enterprise education and entrepreneurship

education.

Developing entrepreneurial competence/y/ies

Competence/y/ies is a set of terms with widespread use in the human resource development

domain, where they are used in assessment of people’s job performance (Moore et al., 2002).


Page 6

Sanchez (2011) defines competencies as “a cluster of related knowledge, traits, attitudes and skills

that affect a major part of one’s job; that correlate with performance on the job; that can be

measured against well‐accepted standards; and that can be improved via training and development”

(ibid, p.241). These terms also have regional variations in interpretation, with differences in emphasis

between United Kingdom and United States (Mitchelmore and Rowley, 2010). To alleviate the

confusion, Moore et al. (2002) have proposed competence to relate to an area of work, competency

to relate to the behaviors supporting that area of work, and competencies to relate to the attributes

underpinning these behaviors. They also relate behavior to both ability and willingness to act, leaning

on Burgoyne (1989) who defines competency as “the willingness and ability to perform a task” (p.

57).

Combining the two ambiguous terms entrepreneurial and competencies, we get a concept that varies

substantially in its meaning and interpretation. Still, scholars have found value in using the concept of

entrepreneurial competencies. Man et al. (2002) see it as a higher‐level characteristic that reflects

the “total ability of the entrepreneur to perform a job role successfully” (ibid, p.124). Based on a

comprehensive literature review, they define six major areas of entrepreneurial competencies;

“opportunity, relationship, conceptual, organizing, strategic and commitment competencies” (ibid,

p.124). In his article on entrepreneurial learning, Man (2007) has proposed a framework containing

four factors involved in developing entrepreneurial competencies; (1) inputs, or individual

characteristics; (2) process, or tasks leading to competence; (3) outcomes, or achieving standards of

performance; and (4) context, or organizational and environmental factors affecting competency

development. According to Man (ibid), a competency approach to entrepreneurial learning has

important implications for teaching entrepreneurship, in that more focus should be put on input and

context aspects in a systemic and integrated way, rather than just treating knowledge, skills and

attitudes separately as is often done in educational contexts. This recommendation has been taken

into account in this thesis, impacting research design.

Some other frameworks for entrepreneurial competencies have been proposed. Johannisson (1991)

has proposed a framework consisting of five levels of learning; (1) Know‐what, or knowledge; (2)

Know‐when, or insight; (3) Know‐who, or social skills; (4) Know‐how, or skills; (5) Know‐why, or

attitudes, values and motives. Based on this framework he calls for more contextual approaches in

entrepreneurship teaching, involving qualified experience and social networks through action

learning. Another influentional scholar is Bird, who (1995) explored various “laundry lists” of

entrepreneurial competencies mainly derived from management theories, and proposed a model of

entrepreneurial competency development consisting of antecedents to competency, current

competencies and outcome. Starting with antecedents to competency, factors such as family

background, education, industry experience and work experience were highlighted. Current

competencies were categorized in motive/trait, self‐concept, social role and skills. The outcome in

new venture start‐up success were stated to feed back to antecedents in a circular way. Yet another

group of scholars, Rasmussen et al. (2011), have studied spin‐offs in university settings, and identifed

three main categories of entrepreneurial competencies, (1) opportunity refinement, or discovering

and developing opportunities ; (2) leveraging, or acquiring the resources required to develop an

opportunity ; and (3) championing, or identifying with the resulting venture and convincing others to

join. Finally, a recent literature review on entrepreneurial competencies by Mitchelmore and Rowley

(2010) resulted in a rather long “laundry list” of key competencies grouped in four categories: (1)


Page 7

entrepreneurial competencies; (2) business and management competencies; (3) human relations

competencies; and (4) conceptual and relationship competencies. This list illustrates the definitional

issues around entrepreneurship described earlier, and it becomes clear that defining

entrepreneurship broadly risks “dissolving it as a specialized field of study” (Stevenson and Jarillo,

1990, p.23).

A specific aspect of a competencies approach is its emphasis on measurability. Some definitions of

competencies include measurability, others do not (Moore et al., 2002). Measuring competencies is

problematic, requiring multiple methods and approaches that to a varying degree are subjective. Bird

(1995) lists 17 potential methods for assessing entrepreneurial competencies, such as diaries,

observation, archival data, critical event interviewing, role set ratings, cases, think aloud protocols

and job shadowing. In the domain of entrepreneurial education an often advocated approach to

assess the degree of competencies developed in an entrepreneurship course or program is the use of

pseudo‐randomized experiments with pre‐ and post measurements on treatment and control groups

(Martin et al., 2012). The measurement instruments are often survey‐based and try to capture the

prevalence of entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, attitudes and intentions before and after an

educational treatment.

The search for evidence for developed competencies in education has led many scholars to advocate

and apply research methods taken from natural science, such as the randomized experiment. It has

been a recurring theme for some decades now, fuelled by research funding policy in United States

and elsewhere (Slavin, 2002). This kind of evidence based approach has however been heavily

criticized by scholars in education. Olson (2004) claims that “the more simple cause‐effect relations

so important to the physical and biological sciences are largely inappropriate to the human sciences,

which trade on the beliefs, hopes, and reasons of intentional beings.” (p. 25). Biesta (2007) states

that “education cannot be understood as an intervention or treatment because of the noncausal and

normative nature of educational practice and because of the fact that the means and ends in

education are internally related.” (p. 20).

This thesis represents an approach to outcome assessment that differs from the traditional

randomized experiment approach, in that it explores what entrepreneurial competency development

can be tied to emotionally laden experiences caused by an action‐based entrepreneurial education

program.

Entrepreneurial education

Erkkilä (2000) has defined United States and United Kingdom as leaders in the entrepreneurial

education trend. In United States the first entrepreneurship class was held in 1947 (Katz, 2003). In

United Kingdom Allan Gibb has been an key scholar leading the development in the field for decades.

Entrepreneurial education has seen worldwide exponential growth in higher education institutions

(Kuratko, 2005), and was in 2001 offered at around 1200 business schools only in United States (Katz,

2008). This growth is often explained by entrepreneurship being seen as a major engine for economic

growth and job creation (Wong et al., 2005), and as a response to the increasingly globalized,

uncertain and complex world we live in (Gibb, 2002). Today entrepreneurial education has become

an important part of both industrial and educational policy in many countries (Hytti and O’Gorman,

2004). Besides the usual economical and job growth related reasons to promote entrepreneurial


Page 8

education, there is also increasing emphasis on the effects it can have on students’ perceived

relevancy, engagement and motivation in education (Surlemont, 2007).

With very few exceptions, focus of research in entrepreneurial education has been on post‐

secondary levels of education (Gorman et al., 1997), which is surprising given that childhood and

adolescence is considered to be an ideal age for acquiring basic knowledge and positive attitudes

towards entrepreneurship (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003). This lack of research is also surprising

given the immense policy pressure on educational institutions to integrate entrepreneurial education

in pre‐university education (European_Commission, 2012). Following a rapidly developing trend

starting as late as in 2003, most countries in the European Union now have launched national

strategies for entrepreneurial education in general schooling (ibid). There is today very limited

available empirical research outlining to what extent and with what results entrepreneurial

education has been diffused in pre‐university education.

Entrepreneurial education is often categorized into three approaches (Johnson, 1988, O'Connor,

2012, Heinonen and Hytti, 2010, Scott et al., 1998). Teaching “about” entrepreneurship means a

content‐laden and theoretical approach aiming to give a general understanding of the phenomenon.

Teaching “for” entrepreneurship means an occupationally oriented approach aiming at giving

budding entrepreneurs the requisite knowledge and skills. Teaching “through” means a process

based and often experiential approach where students go through an actual entrepreneurial learning

process (Kyrö, 2005).

How entrepreneurial education is carried out in practice varies substantially, primarily depending on

which definition is used (Mwasalwiba, 2010), but also depending on what underlying educational

paradigm is applied (Ardalan, 2008). In general, the definitions used seem to get more and more

narrow (i.e. business and start‐up focused) the higher up in the educational system one looks

(Johannisson et al., 1997, Mahieu, 2006). The actual coursework is often based on personal

experience rather than systematic approaches (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008), and is often centered

around letting students create a business plan (Honig, 2004). To guide educators, Fayolle and Gailly

(2008) have proposed a teaching framework for entrepreneurial education consisting of five

questions to be answered in this order – (1) Why, or objectives and goals connected to learning

needs in society; (2) For whom, or characteristics of the intended audience in terms of previous

knowledge, experience and attitudes; (3) For which result, or how to evaluate and assess the

learners; (4) What, or contents in terms of professional, spiritual and theoretical dimensions; and (5)

How, or methods and pedagogies.

Entrepreneurial education at post‐secondary levels is often expected to take part of the regional

entrepreneurial ecosystem. (Mwasalwiba, 2010, Gorman et al., 1997). Common activities, often

termed “outreach”, include assisting local entrepreneurs, interacting with student clubs, inviting

alumni and experts, visiting networking events, conducting student consulting and participating in

business plan competitions (European_Commission, 2008, Mwasalwiba, 2010, Rice et al., 2010). Less

common activities include interaction with incubators and technology transfer offices for university

commercialization purposes (Moroz et al., 2010, Nelson and Byers, 2010). Hynes and Richardson

(2007) outline several benefits of outreach arrangements for students, faculty, researchers and

stakeholders outside university. Two terms frequently used in conjunction to outreach activities are


Page 9

“third mission” and “the entrepreneurial university” (Etzkowitz, 2003, Rothaermel et al., 2007,

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000).

Many outreach activities are extra‐curricular due to difficulties in integrating them into formal

courses and programs (Botham and Mason, 2007). A notable exception to this is a “venture creation

approach” (Ollila and Williams‐Middleton, 2011), i.e. when entrepreneurial education is formally

integrated with commercialization entities at the university. This constitutes an exception from the

prevailing norm that the formation of spinoffs based on university research is managed by

technology transfer offices or similar entities, without integration to entrepreneurial education

(Shane, 2004). Some programs applying a venture creation approach have shown interesting outputs

in terms of both student learning and student‐led venture creation (Barr et al., 2009, Hofer et al.,

2010, Meyer et al., 2011, Thursby et al., 2009). Research on this kind of integrated environments is in

a nascent stage, but seems to be an environment well suited to study entrepreneurial competency

development first‐hand as ventures are started by inexperienced individuals. This research

opportunity is one of the basic tenets of this thesis.

At pre‐university level interaction between entrepreneurial education and the surrounding society is

not well researched. Some exceptions outline substantial benefits of external engagement in terms

of increased motivation for learners, increased school attachment and strengthened self‐confidence

(Surlemont, 2007, Nakkula et al., 2003, Jamieson, 1984). A widespread model is Young Enterprise

(Dwerryhouse, 2001) where adolescents run a company for 8 months, followed by voluntary

liquidation.

Paradigmatic ontology and epistemology related challenges abound in entrepreneurial education

(Kyrö, 2005, Taatila, 2010). Articles contrasting between a “traditional” and an “entrepreneurial” way

of teaching are frequent in entrepreneurial education literature. The usual way of illustrating the

differences is by showing a table with two columns contrasting traditional teaching with

entrepreneurial teaching (Gibb, 1993, Johnson, 1988, Ollila and Williams‐Middleton, 2011, Cotton,

1991, Kyrö, 2005, Kirby, 2004). Standardized, content focused, passive and single‐subject based

curriculum in traditional education is often contrasted with an individualized, active, process‐based,

collaborative and multidisciplinary approach in entrepreneurial education. In line with this,

entrepreneurial education scholars often attack traditional business schools for their alleged

detachment from real life and silo structures, stating that it is not a suitable place for entrepreneurial

education or entrepreneurial extracurricular activities (Hindle, 2007, Binks et al., 2006, Wright et al.,

2009, Tan and Ng, 2006). Some even claim that formal education in general suppresses

entrepreneurial attitudes (Löbler, 2006, Gorman et al., 1997, Chamard, 1989). In line with this, a

study by Kourilsky (1980) found that entrepreneurial characteristics were found at 25% of

kindergarten children but only at 3% of high school students.

Löbler (2006) has stated that “the constructivist paradigm serves as a theoretical base for

entrepreneurship education” (p.31). This way of positioning entrepreneurial education in the

progressivist and constructivist end of an educational philosophy continuum gives the domain of

entrepreneurial education an interesting opportunity to leverage on a century‐long debate between

traditional and progressive / constructivist education (Tynjälä, 1999, Labaree, 2005). Some scholars

in education have recently proposed a “third way” bridging between traditional and progressive

education (Egan, 2008, Hager, 2005, Säljö, 2007). This strategy has however not yet reached the

domain

entrepre

commun

1999) an

sections

Entrepre

Markow

acquire

learning

program

that can

themes

enterpri

educatio

numerou

learning,

Cope, 2

implicati

entrepre

(2012), s

Figure 2. C

An impo

learning,

(Pittawa

down in

context‐

of entrepr

eneurial edu

nities of pra

nd adult and

about learn

eneurial lear

wska (2011) h

entrepreneu

is essenti

mmes.” (p.19

n assist sens

‐ (1) perso

se. Politis (2

on, since it re

us implicatio

, one of the

2010, Cope,

ions for en

eneurial lear

since Cope h

Cope's entrepre

ortant impli

, or learning

y and Thorp

nto acting,

‐based appro

Licentiate The

reneurial ed

ucation are

ctice and sit

life‐long lea

ing and educ

rning

has describe

urial compet

al for the

0). Rae (200

se‐making fo

onal and so

005) has sta

equires learn

ons for ent

most elabor

2003). Tog

trepreneuria

rning is outl

imself died i

eneurial learnin

ication of C

g from doing

e, 2012). Acc

experiencing

oach is reco

esis, Martin Lac

ducation. Ot

pragmatism

tuated learn

rning (Jarvis

cation.

ed entrepren

tencies. Acc

design of

5) has propo

or students i

ocial emerge

ted that ent

ning by doing

trepreneuria

rate framew

gether with

al education

ined in Figu

n 2011.

ng framework.

Cope’s entre

g, or experie

cording to Pi

g and learn

ommended,

ckéus, draft, ple

Page 10

ther educat

m (Dewey,

ning (Lave an

, 2006). We

neurial learn

cording to M

enterprise

osed a conce

in entrepren

ence; (2) co

repreneuria

g. Despite th

al education

works ever pr

h Pittaway,

n (Pittaway

re 2, as it h

epreneurial

ential learnin

ittaway and

ning from e

as it captu

ease do not spre

tional conce

1916), exp

nd Wenger,

will come ba

ning as the

Man (2007),

education

eptual frame

neurial educ

ontextual le

l learning ca

his, Pittaway

of Cope’s

roposed (Co

Cope has

and Cope,

has been pre

learning fra

ng, is essent

Thorpe (201

experience.

ures the soc

ead. May 2013

epts with m

eriential lea

1991), servi

ack to many

process by w

“understand

and entrep

ework of ent

cation, consi

arning; and

nnot be achi

and Thorpe

framework

pe, 2005, Co

also explor

2007b). Co

esented by P

amework is

tial to entrep

12), action le

A project‐b

cial, emotio

many simila

arning (Kolb

ice‐learning

of these issu

which entre

ding entrep

preneurship

repreneuria

sting of thre

(3) the ne

ieved throug

e(2012) have

for entrep

ope and Wat

red his fram

ope’s framew

Pittaway and

s that ‘actio

preneurial e

arning can b

ased, hands

nal and exp

arities to

b, 1984),

(Meyers,

ues in the

preneurs

reneurial

training

l learning

ee major

egotiated

gh formal

e outlined

reneurial

tts, 2000,

mework’s

work for

d Thorpe

on‐based’

education

be broken

s‐on and

periential


Page 11

nature of entrepreneurial learning (Pittaway and Cope, 2007b). Pittaway and Thorpe (2012) have also

outlined some other key implications of Cope’s work for entrepreneurial education. Educators should

try to build in opportunities for students to learn from emotional and risk‐laden events and processes

by letting them resolve uncertain, complex and ambiguous situations, preferably in authentic

settings. Three kinds of risks are outlined and elaborated on – emotional risk, financial risk and social

risk (ibid, p.853‐854). This implies that entrepreneurial education should be socially situated in the

communities of practice that the students are preparing themselves to work in, allowing them to pick

up valuable information, knowledge, skills, manner and techniques. In Cope’s framework failure is

considered highly beneficial for learning, as deep learning occurs from failures such as damaged

personal relationships, lost personal credibility, isolation from personal business networks and the

loss of financial resources (ibid, p.853). Exposing students to such risks is however problematic in

both ethical and practical terms (Pittaway and Cope, 2007b).

Learning

Cope states (2005) that “the entrepreneurship discipline does not currently possess sufficient

conceptual frameworks to explain how entrepreneurs learn” (ibid, p.373). He further states that we

need to go outside the entrepreneurship domain to find learning theories that can help us explain

the emotionally intense process that entrepreneurial activities constitute. According to Gondim and

Mutti (2011), Jarvis theory of human learning fully acknowledges the importance of emotion in the

learning process. This is unusual in today’s society where a rationalist bias is ever so present,

emphasizing rationality, objectivity, and cognition and downplaying emotion and experience (Yorks

and Kasl, 2002, Postle, 1993, Lutz and White, 1986). Jarvis’ theory of human learning constitutes an

important theoretical platform for this thesis, and will therefore be described further below.

The whole person

A foundational statement in Jarvis (2006) theory of human learning is that “it is the whole person

who learns” (ibid, p. 31, 32, 50, 116, 151, 181 and 186). This reflects a view of the learner as

comprising both body (genetic, physical and biological) and mind (knowledge, skills, attitudes, values,

emotions, meaning, beliefs and senses). This stance also exposes some major inherent flaws in the

widely used behaviorist, cognitivist and functionalist approaches to learning. Behaviorist approaches

to learning focus primarily on measurable behavior. According to Jarvis this is a theoretically weak

position incapable of explaining learning processes (ibid, p.35), since it disregards the crucial role of

personal meaning and thoughts. Cognitivist approaches study learning primarily as knowing and

thinking. They are also regarded as crude and limited by Jarvis, as they isolate the individual from the

social and do not take bodily and emotive experiences into consideration (ibid, p. 157 and 176).

Functionalist approaches approximate the human brain to a computer, regarding the mental states

of a person as causally related to sensory inputs and behavioral outputs. According to Jarvis (ibid

p.36), this approach ignores the importance humans put on meaning and intentionality and is also

limited by its emphasis on rationality, whereas human reasoning is frequently based on emotional

and irrational reasoning.


Page 12

Jarvis theory of human learning

Jarvis’ own theory of learning is grounded in the experiential and social learning domains. He defines

learning as a process where the whole person experiences social situations that transform them

cognitively, emotively and/or practically, leading to a more experienced person (ibid, p.134). This

way we learn to become ourselves, i.e. we are continually in the process of creating our personal

biographies through learning (Jarvis, 2009, p.135). Jarvis regards this as a life‐long identity

transformation process. This view of learning constitutes an empirically grounded and “whole

person” based foundation for studying how individuals are becoming entrepreneurial through

entrepreneurial education. It also shows similarities to the definition of competencies offered by

Sanchez (2011), with its emphasis on the three faculties of mind (Hilgard, 1980).

Based on this definition Jarvis outlines ten different types of learning (2010), see Table 1. Central to

most of them is the notion of a “disjuncture”, which is a situation where a person’s harmony is

disturbed by something or someone in the environment, triggering thoughts, emotions and actions.

The trigger can be another person, a phenomenon (thing/event), a future phenomenon or self. This

situation forces the person to raise questions such as “What do I do now?”, “What does that mean?”

etc., and subsequently initiate a learning process.

Table 1. Ten different types of learning, based on Jarvis (2010).

Ten learning types Disjuncture Thought Emotion Action Clarification

Non‐learning ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Taken‐for‐granted patterned life experiences (harmony).

Non‐consideration Yes ‐ ‐ ‐ Learning opportunity unconsciously rejected.

Rejection Yes Yes ‐ ‐ Learning opportunity consciously rejected.

Ambivalence Yes Yes Yes ‐ Conflict between emotions and rational thought.

Contemplation Yes Yes Yes ‐ Philosophical and spiritual reflective learning.

Emotional learning Yes Yes Yes ‐ This type has been defined by Goleman (1998).

Discovery learning Yes Yes ‐ Yes Scientific research is often based on this type.

Action learning Yes Yes Yes Yes Taking action and reflecting in social settings.

Memorization ‐ Yes ‐ ‐ Most teaching in school is based on this type.

Pre‐conscious learning ‐ ‐ Yes ‐ Learning through bodily senses, before thinking.

Experiential and action learning

The only learning type in Jarvis’ classification that fully takes thoughts, emotion and action into

account is action learning. According to a review of action learning conducted by Marsick and O’Neil

(1999), the main theoretical base of experiential and action learning comes from David Kolb (1984)

and Reg Revans (1971), representing the experiential school and scientific school respectively. Kolb’s

proposed experiential learning cycle has been widely used in entrepreneurial education theory and

practice, and consists of four phases – concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract

conceptualization and active experimentation (Kolb, 1984). But experiential learning did not start

with Kolb’s seminal work. Hoover and Whitehead (1975) had earlier defined experiential learning as

follows: “Experiential learning exists when a personally responsible participant(s) cognitively,

affectively, and behaviorally processes knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes in a learning situation

characterized by a high level of active involvement.” (p.25). This definition is illustrative of aspects

important in this thesis in that it leans on activities involving all three faculties of mind, i.e. thought,

action and emotion (Hilgard, 1980), and also is similar to the “whole person” approach. Kolb also


Page 13

names Dewey (pragmatism), Lewin (action research) and Piaget (child and adolescent learning) as

founders of the experiential approach (Kolb, 1984). Miettinen (2000) has explored the strong

connections between experiential learning and Dewey’s pragmatism.

Revans did not consider the Kolbian cycle to be an appropriate theory base for action learning

(Marsick and O’Neil, 1999). Instead Revans proposed three problem solving phases – Alpha, or

situation analysis; Beta, or implementation of a solution; and Gamma, or the manager’s mindset and

its development (Marsick and O’Neil, 1999, Dilworth, 1998). Revans was reluctant to define action

learning due to the risk of opening up to shallow thinking, and stated that “the day it is accurately

described in words will be the day to stop having anything to do with it” (Revans, 1983, p.49). In

addition to Revans some other scholars also critique Kolb’s experiential learning theory (Jarvis, 2006,

Holman et al., 1997), stating that it cannot be empirically validated and that it omits considering

emotional aspects of learning. A theorist that explicitly studies emotional aspects of learning is Heron

(Heron, 2009, Heron, 1992, Postle, 1993).

Situated learning theory

Studying learning in its socially situated context poses a serious methodological challenge of

simultaneously isolating critical properties while considering the full context in a holistic manner

(Nardi, 1996). One approach to overcome this challenge is to rely on activity theory. This theory was

pioneered by Russian researchers Vygotsky, Leont’ev and Luria in early 20:th century as a

philosophical framework for understanding human activity and work practices (Jonassen and

Rohrer‐Murphy, 1999). In activity theory, human activity is broken down into subject, object and

mediating tools. Subjects undertake activities using tools to achieve an objective, which is then

transformed into an outcome. This is done in a situated social context of rules, community and

division of labor (Uden, 2007). Activity theory emphasizes change, contradictions and development

rather than stability (Haigh, 2007). Activity theory and social constructivism are complementary

approaches (Holman et al., 1997, Jones and Holt, 2008). According to some scholars, activity theory

provides an appropriate framework for analyzing constructivist learning environments (Jonassen and

Rohrer‐Murphy, 1999, Uden, 2007), making it a theory also appropriate for the study of

entrepreneurial education with its theoretical roots in constructivism (Löbler, 2006). Activity theory

also has many similarities to Deweyian pragmatism with its focus on human action and interaction

(Miettinen, 2001).

Engeström (2009) has based his situated learning theory on activity theory, labeling it “expansive

learning”. He has proposed a theoretical model consisting of a pyramid illustrating the activity

system, see Figure 3. A principle stated by Engeström is that the entire activity system should be seen

as the primary unit of analysis, thus “overcoming the split between the Cartesian individual and the

untouchable societal structure” (Engeström, 2009, p. 54). This approach was first proposed by

Leont’ev (1978) in a famous example of a collective hunt where ground beaters didn’t directly hunt

nor get gratification for their activity – “an individual’s actions (to beat) has a goal (to scare the

animals) which is different to the overall object motivating the activity as a whole (to successfully

hunt and kill an animal)” (Fleer, 2011, p.67). The motive for an individual’s activity was seemingly

counter‐intuitively positioned outside the individual, but made perfect sense in a collective

perspective, or as Leont’ev states: “behind activity there should always be a need” (Leont'ev, 1978,

p.62).

Engeströ

machine

used act

learning

educatio

Figure 3. T

The emp

These c

(Engestr

capitalist

commod

activities

Tools me

One of t

The conc

by Hege

predomi

prepacka

1995). W

neglecte

propose

mediato

the hum

being in

psycholo

p.68). Th

literatur

The liter

is natura

öm also has s

e” (Engeströ

tivity theory

(Taylor and

on (Deignan,

The structure o

phasis on co

ontradiction

röm, 2009, p

t activity sy

dities” (ibid,

s (Murphy et

ediating lear

he basic com

cept of tools

el and Marx

inant acquis

aged knowle

While crucia

ed in Weste

d by Vygots

or was based

man mind; fir

nternalized b

ogical tools “

he terms “c

e, but Vygot

rature is full

al and artifi

Licentiate The

stated that a

m, 1987, p.

y when analy

d Thorpe, 20

2010).

of a human acti

ntradictions

ns trigger le

p.55). Accord

ystems is th

p. 57). Acti

t al., 2006), a

rning

mponents in

s that media

(Kozulin and

ition‐based

edge is trans

al among th

ern societies

sky; human b

d on Vygotsk

rst in interac

by the learn

“mediate hu

cognitive too

tsky’s own te

of examples

cial languag

esis, Martin Lac

an activity sy

11). This re

yzing new ve

004), entrep

vity system (En

in activity t

earning and

ing to Enges

he contradic

vities exploi

and thus lead

activity theo

ate learning w

d Presseisen,

model of lea

smitted to p

he Russian

s (Arievitch

beings, mate

ky’s theory (

ction with p

ner. While m

umans’ own

ols”, “mind t

erm was “psy

s of what can

es (Kozulin

ckéus, draft, ple

Page 14

ystem is "a v

sonates wel

enture creat

preneurship

ngeström, 1987

heory has si

“are the d

ström, the m

ction betwe

ting such co

d both to val

ory is the too

was propose

, 1995). This

arning in so

passive recip

followers o

and Stetsen

erial tools an

1978) that e

people such

material too

psychologic

tools” and “

ychological t

n be conside

and Pressei

ease do not spre

virtual distur

ll with entre

tion (Jones a

education (

7, p.78)

milarities to

driving force

main source o

en “the use

ontradictions

lue creation

ols that med

ed by Vygots

s concept wa

litude explo

ients (Kozuli

of Vygotsky,

nko, 2000).

nd psycholog

each psycho

as parents o

ols are direc

al processes

“cultural too

ools” (Levyk

red a psycho

sen, 1995).

ead. May 2013

bance‐ and i

epreneurship

and Holt, 20

(Ardichvili, 2

what Jarvis

e of change

of instability

e value and

s can be lab

and learning

iate betwee

sky in early 2

as proposed

red by Piage

in, 2003, Koz

this concep

Three kinds

gical tools. T

logical funct

or teachers,

cted toward

s” (Kozulin a

ols” are used

h, 2008).

ological tool.

Vygotsky re

innovation‐p

p, and schol

008), entrep

2003) and e

labels ”disju

e and devel

y and develo

d exchange

beled entrep

g.

en subject an

20th century,

as a reactio

et and other

zulin and Pr

pt has bee

s of mediato

The idea of

tion appears

and second

ds objects o

and Presseise

d interchang

. A common

egarded liter

producing

lars have

reneurial

nterprise

uncture”.

opment”

pment in

value of

reneurial

nd object.

, inspired

on to the

rs, where

resseisen,

n largely

ors were

a human

s twice in

ly as it is

f nature,

en, 1995,

geably in

example

racy as a


Page 15

“special system of symbols and signs the mastery of which signifies a critical turning point in the

whole cultural development of the child” (Vygotsky, 1997, p.132). This is different from the common

but flawed understanding of literacy as a natural development of the human mind (Egan and

Gajdamaschko, 2003). Another common interpretation of psychological tools can be found in the

domain of information technology. Tools such as Excel, PowerPoint and MSN Messenger are put

forward as “cognitive tools”, “mindtools” or “technologies of the mind” (Kirschner and Erkens, 2006,

p.201). In this case it is not the tools itself that are considered psychological tool, but that they

constitute an intellectual partner that “enhances the cognitive powers of human beings during

thinking, problem solving, and learning” (ibid, p.201). Other common examples of psychological tools

are signs, symbols, numeracy, schemas, models, methods, concepts, algorithms, graphic organizers,

maps, diagrams and heuristics (Kozulin, 2003, Arievitch and Stetsenko, 2000, Egan, 2008, Jonassen

and Rohrer‐Murphy, 1999). Some examples of psychological tools on a relatively high level of

abstraction are also given in literature, such as emotions (Levykh, 2008), cultural‐symbolic systems of

different epochs and nations (Kozulin and Presseisen, 1995), social‐organizational entities such as

schools (Ardichvili, 2003) and entrepreneurship education programs (Deignan, 2010).

From a learning perspective psychological tools is more than a neat term, it is a perspective with

potential to vastly improve learning outcomes. In Russia, around 800 studies have been conducted

using a “systemic‐theoretical instruction” approach based on Vygotsky’s concept of psychological

tools (Arievitch and Stetsenko, 2000). This comprehensive research initiative was led by one of

Russia’s most influential educational psychologist Piotr Galperin (Haenen, 1996). Results have been

compelling, such as “the formation of genuine mathematical concepts in children a whole age period

earlier – in 6‐year‐olds rather than in 10‐12‐year olds, when it usually occurs” (ibid, p. 81). These

results are explained by “operational schemas of thinking that qualitatively change the child's whole

way of viewing things, thinking about things, and operating with things in a given domain” (ibid, p.

86), an effect occurring “when the set of cognitive tools provided to the child is complete and based

on theoretical concepts” (ibid, p. 87). This is contrasted to the “traditional type of instruction [that]

still dominates most educational systems” (ibid, p. 75), influenced by Piaget’s learning theory which

stipulates that learners go through natural development stages. According to Piaget, these stages

require teachers to introduce content bit by bit in an empirical and trial‐and‐error manner, with

simple tasks first and more difficult tasks later, revealing the conceptual and theoretical

underpinnings at a rather late stage. The psychological tools approach suggests that this should be

reversed, so that instruction starts with top‐down generalizations through comprehensive orienting

schemata. Galperin has outlined a six‐stage teaching strategy to be followed in order to realize the

benefits of his action‐based “systemic‐theoretical instruction” (ibid, p.131):

1. Motivational stage – actions to be learned are introduced and connected to relevant goals.

2. Orienting stage – a “cheat schema” outlining a complete framework for actions to be learned

3. Material stage – learning by taking action in actual practice or through simulation.

4. Overt speech stage – Transferring actions taken into oral speech, linking action with thought

and facilitating theorizing / generalizing in a social setting of “communicated thinking”.

5. Covert speech stage – Inner dialog reflecting on previous stages by speaking “in the head”.

6. Mental stage – The action takes place in abbreviated form, has been transformed into a

partly subconscious scheme or mental phenomenon, as a cognitive tool being “kept in mind”.


Page 16

This six‐stage teaching strategy resonates with many teaching practices advocated in the domain of

entrepreneurial education, where action‐based approaches stipulate letting students learn by taking

action in real‐life practice settings and reflect on their actions. It also resonates with Kolb’s

experiential learning cycle. It is however more explicit than many other situated learning theories in

its emphasis on cognitive tools such as “cheat sheets”, in its emphasis on social and verbal

interpretation of actions taken and in its final stages where internalization of actions into mental

thought occurs (Rambusch, 2006). Rambusch considers Galperin’s theory to be “a necessary and long

missing link between sociocultural learning theories and traditional, more cognitivist approaches to

learning.” (ibid, p. 1998). To conclude, I posit that Galperin’s theory constitutes a promising

framework for the field of entrepreneurial education.

In what has been labeled Imaginative Education (IE), Egan (1997, 2003, 2005, 2008) has proposed an

extensive range of cognitive tools that mediate learning for example by infusing humor and emotions

into the learning situation; by using storytelling to create a sense of meaning and purpose; by

leveraging on emotionally charged binary opposites and extremes to give shape and meaning to

events; by telling stories about the heroes behind important theorems and axioms; and by being

open to anomalies. The school days can be divided so that in the morning learners focus on

knowledge acquisition and in the afternoon they focus on socially connected projects where the

knowledge is put to use through these cognitive tools (Egan, 2008, p.147). The IE approach has

spurred a global movement with thousands of educators applying these tools. Quantitative research

has shown that the IE based storytelling approach can yield significantly better results on knowledge

specific tests without taking more time in class (Hadzigeorgiou et al., 2012), and at the same time

significantly increase learner engagement. Egan’s theory is another promising framework for the field

of entrepreneurial education.

The above outlined theoretical perspectives from the learning domain have informed this thesis in

many ways, and constitute a crucial basis for the continually evolving research design and

methodology applied in the appended articles as well as in ongoing further work. An objection that

can be made in this thesis focusing primarily on higher education is that some of the learning

theories described above have been developed by researchers primarily focusing on children and

adolescents. Jarvis however states that it increasingly is “becoming apparent that it is false to try to

separate adult learning from child learning” (Jarvis, 2010, p. 120). Still, some caution is warranted.

Education

Having briefly outlined some aspects relevant to this thesis in the domains of entrepreneurship,

entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurial learning and general learning, we will now relate them to

some current and pressing issues in the domain of education. This will later allow us to generate

some implications and suggestions for further research in the domain of entrepreneurial education,

which will be done in the discussion part of this thesis.

Jarvis defines education as “any institutionalized and planned series of incidents, having a humanistic

basis, directed towards the participants’ learning and understanding” (Jarvis, 2010, p. 41). He further

outlines formal learning, non‐formal learning and informal learning (ibid). Formal learning is defined

as any education and training occurring in an educational institution. Non‐formal learning rather


Page 17

occurs at the workplace or in the community. Informal learning refers to the everyday self‐directed

learning that we undertake individually or in a group.

The battle in formal education

Egan (2008) has outlined three main goals of education; achieving social cohesion, diffusing

inherently valuable knowledge and facilitating growth of the individual mind. These three goals are in

many ways conflicting. For example, it can be seen as contradictory to have a standardized

curriculum while also allowing for full heterogeneity and adaptation to individual needs. And it is not

obvious what knowledge is ultimately valuable for society, or for the individual. These conflicting

goals are the root cause of a century‐long battle between “traditionalists” and “progressivists”, a

battle that was started by Rousseau (1762) with his book “Émile ou de l’éducation”, exposing the

“fundamental conflict between forming the citizen and forming the individual” (Egan, 2008, p.23).

According to Labaree (2005), this battle was won already in early 20th century by the traditionalists.

Utility won over romanticism, with a message more appealing to people in power and with far more

convincing quantitative test results proving the behaviorist approach proposed by Edward Thorndike

(ibid). The progressivists, with Dewey as their lead educational philosopher and a steady cadre of

teachers and professors in education leading the way (ibid), have ever since been building on their

case. Lately they have been informally joined by movements such as social constructivism (Garrison,

1995), qualitative research methodology (Atkinson et al., 1988, Lackéus et al., 2013) and

entrepreneurial education (From, 2006, Löbler, 2006, Pepin, 2012). From the traditionalists, the usual

accusations of romanticism, emotionalism, fuzziness and lack of guidance are still strong (Ernest,

1995, Lutz and White, 1986, Kirschner et al., 2006).

Progressivist arguments have also been raised lately by agitated critics of business schools (Bennis

and O’Toole, 2005, Pfeffer and Fong, 2002), stating that today’s business schools represent a kind of

teaching that is detached from real‐world problems and issues. Business schools are thus attacked

both from entrepreneurial education scholars as outlined previously and from general education

scholars, with rather similar arguments. In general however, the battle between traditionalists and

progressivists is not as fierce at the higher education level as at the level of schooling. Instead

entrepreneurial education is often treated as a separate topic, allowing the teachers some level of

autonomy.

Contemporary challenges in education

According to Ball (1998), globalization and increased uncertainty in our society have stalled the

formerly ongoing processes of progressive experimentation in education, replacing them on an

international scale with a set of “reinvented traditional pedagogies” (ibid, p.121). This has led to

frequent creation of education markets where parental choice is in focus, a set‐up grounded in

neoliberal ideologies of marketization. This has been coupled with replacing “task specification by

target setting” (ibid, p. 122), grounded in industrial practices sometimes called Mitsubishi‐ism. These

targets are then steered towards by principles of performativity, i.e. perform or perish, where

performance is measured on national and international levels in high‐stakes standardized tests.

Altogether this becomes a system of steering at a distance, replacing interventions with


Page 18

accountability and transferring blame and responsibility from the reformer to the self‐managed

educational institution (ibid).

For the learners this has resulted in an increased focus on the competencies that are measurable, i.e.

cognitive skills, at the expense of competencies that are more difficult to measure with standardized

test scores but crucial on the labor market, i.e. affective, social, behavioral and emotional

competencies, often labeled non‐cognitive skills (Levin, 2011, Heckman and Rubinstein, 2001,

Lindqvist and Vestman, 2011). This narrowing of the curriculum is a huge challenge to the domain of

entrepreneurial education, and is certainly not in line with a “whole person” approach to learning.

On one side entrepreneurial competency development is promoted by national and international

policymakers, on the other side the trend towards more neoliberal educational systems are

increasingly excluding this very kind of competency development. This paradox is evident in the

Swedish school system today (Falk‐Lundqvist et al., 2011), and perhaps in many other education

systems too.

Altogether, this focus on high‐stakes testing and its resulting narrowing of the curriculum taught has

contributed to major problems in education, such as difficulties to engage students in school

(Broadfoot, 2000), increased rates of school drop‐outs particularly among minorities and poor

(Amrein and Berliner, 2002) and a view that educational institutions to some extent fail to be

relevant in today’s society (Binks et al., 2006). According to Broadfoot (2000), contemporary

education has failed to “recognize the key role that perceived relevance and emotion play in

learning” (ibid, p.365).

Some proposed ideas for the future of education

The challenges described above in contemporary formal education seem to correspond inversely to

what entrepreneurial education has been shown to be able to contribute to students, i.e. increases in

motivation, perceived relevancy and school attachment (Surlemont, 2007, Nakkula et al., 2003).

Another observation is that the kind of disjunctural experiences so important to learning according to

Jarvis(2010), are largely missing in contemporary formal education with its focus on rote learning and

test preparations, i.e. the learning type Jarvis labels “memorization”, see table 1 (ibid, p.89). This is

yet another possibility for entrepreneurial education to contribute, with its abundance of disjunctural

experiences (Pittaway and Thorpe, 2012).

A tools approach also seems to be a plausible way forward. According to Egan (2008), the way

cognitive tools truly can bridge between traditional and progressive education is when they are put

to work deeply within domains of knowledge in a way meaningful to the learner. Procedures,

methods and tools need to be deeply tied into knowledge domains in actual possession by the

learner, which requires substantial effort and dedication from both teachers and learners. This

approach thereby constitutes a flexible “third way” between the rigidity of traditional education and

the vagueness of progressivism (ibid, p. 143).

It lies within the ambition of this thesis to combine the two approaches of entrepreneurial education

and the mediating tools approach, to explore possible implications for the entrepreneurial education

and learning domain as well as for education and learning in general. Hopefully if these two domains

are combined, some new avenues can be opened up, unlocking new ways to educate our citizens.


Page 19

Methodology

Due to the perceived lack of systematic exploration into this area of research, a qualitative and

explorative multiple case‐study approach (Yin, 2008) has been used, aligning with methodological

recommendations (Edmondson et al., 2007). Two major methodological phases can be distinguished

in this thesis. The first phase was conducted with entrepreneurship programs as the chosen unit of

analysis, aiming to qualify the entrepreneurship programs studied as a relevant and worthwhile

empirical environment. The second phase was conducted with individual students as the chosen unit

of analysis, aiming at understanding their process of developing entrepreneurial competencies,

taking into account the context within which their development process was embedded in and

dependent upon.

Phase 1: Qualifying the empirical environment: Venture creation programs

Employing an appropriate sampling strategy is key to any research design. The strategy applied in

this thesis has been the extreme case sampling strategy (Flick, 2009, p.122), a strategy often applied

when a certain phenomenon is rare enough to merit single case study research designs (Yin, 2009,

p.47). Aiming to identify the extreme cases to study in this phase, a selection process was initiated by

specifying an initial definition of a Venture Creation Program (VCP), allowing for a purposeful sample.

The definition used was (Lackéus and Williams‐Middleton, 2011, p.5):

Entrepreneurship or business educations at a higher education level with the on‐going creation of a

real‐life venture as their primary learning vessel and thus part of formal curriculum, with intention to

incorporate or in some other way indicate future operative status

This resulted in 18 VCPs having been identified so far, and more VCPs being discovered occasionally.

Ten of these programs were then studied using ten sensitizing concepts developed by reviewing

literature on VCPs (Lackéus, 2010). This phase resulted in three conference papers (Lackéus and

Williams‐Middleton, 2011, Lackéus et al., 2011, Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2013), one of which

was decided to be submitted for publication and is included in this thesis (Lackéus and Williams

Middleton, 2013). A general methodological outcome of this phase was that the empirical setting

that Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship constitutes can be regarded as one of the most advanced

and comprehensive VCPs out of the 18 identified, thus justifying a single case study approach as

employed in phase two of this thesis. The first phase thus qualifies Chalmers School of

Entrepreneurship as a “paradigmatic case”, i.e. a case with metaphorical and prototypical value

deemed to be central for human learning (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p.232):

No standard exists for the paradigmatic case because it sets the standard. Hubert Dreyfus and Stuart

Dreyfus (1987) saw paradigmatic cases and case studies as central to human learning. In an interview

with Hubert Dreyfus, I therefore asked what constitutes a paradigmatic case and how it can be

identified. Dreyfus replied: “Heidegger says, you recognize a paradigm case because it shines, but I’m

afraid that is not much help. You just have to be intuitive. We all can tell what is a better or worse

case—of a Cézanne painting, for instance. But I can’t think there could be any rules for deciding what

makes Cézanne a paradigmatic modern painter. . . . In fact, nobody really can justify what their intuition

is.” “


Page 20

From a methodological standpoint it can be questionable when a researcher opts for studying the

entrepreneurship program that he or she is deeply involved in, as is the case in phase two of this

thesis. It is common in entrepreneurial education research that scholars apply a convenience based

sampling strategy, studying their own environment. For these reasons the resource intensive first

phase outlined above, aiming to qualify Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship as one of the world’s

most advanced learning environments in the domain of entrepreneurial education by comparing it

with other similar and equally rare learning environments, is of particular importance in this thesis.

Building on this work, which included a two‐day conference that attracted key people from 14 of the

18 identified VCPs to Gothenburg, Sweden, I posit that the three years spent getting to know the 18

identified VCPs worldwide were well spent, in that the findings outlined in three conference papers

specified above establish the trustworthiness and relevancy of the empirical data which the

subsequent phase is been based on.

Based on this first phase it has been concluded (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2013) that VCPs in

general, and Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship in particular, provide unique access to nascent

stages of entrepreneurial competence development, allowing for observation of entrepreneurial

behavior as it is taking place, instead of through hindsight. This constitutes a rare “clinical” laboratory

environment (Schein, 1993) of high relavancy in research on entrepreneurial competence

development primarily, but also on related issues such as technology transfer, general

entrepreneurship issues and general education / learning issues.

Phase 2: Exploring the development of entrepreneurial competency development

In this still on‐going phase, a longitudinal design has been applied, following 13 students since

September 2012 and ongoing. These students are all following the action‐based master program at

Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. This program is

known for its active and hands‐on approach, requiring student teams to start a real‐life venture

based on a technology supplied by external inventors at or outside the university. This specific

program applies and defines the “venture creation approach” outlined by Ollila and Williams

Middleton (2011) and described previously in this thesis.

11 out of the 13 students in this study work with intellectual property developed by university

researchers, corporate researchers or individual inventors outside university, aiming to

commercialize it through starting a venture. The remaining two students follow a sister program

studying early‐stage commercialization but with a project work rather than venture creation based

approach. Five of the students were included in the study when they initiated their second year of

the master program, and eight of the students have been followed from the start of the two‐year

master program.

A mixed‐methods approach has been applied, using both quantitative and qualitative research

methods. A quantitative approach has been developed to capture emotions as they occur through a

mobile survey in an experience sampling method (ESM) approach (Morris et al., 2012, p.266), and a

qualitative approach has been used to reveal underlying mechanisms through semi‐structured

interviews, primarily searching for connections between strong emotions and learning outcomes.


Page 21

Quantitative approach: mobile survey engine

In the quantitative part of this phase, students are equipped with a mobile app in their smartphones

connected to a mobile survey engine, and are asked to momentarily register every strong positive

and negative emotion they experienced related to their educational experience, and rate it according

to the circumplex model of affect (Russell, 1980, Posner et al., 2005), i.e. to rate valence and

activation for each event deemed worthy of registering. They are asked to quantitatively rate the

following two questions from 1‐7 in a likert scale manner each time they make a report; Q1: “How do

you feel? (1=very sad/upset versus 7=very happy/contented)”, and Q2: “How intensely do you feel

this? (1=not at all versus 7=very intensively)”. The students are also encouraged to write a sentence

or two on why they feel like they do in each app report produced.

The mobile app also contains a possibility to report critical learning events, since this kind of events

constitutes an important source of both emotions and learning according to Cope’s entrepreneurial

learning framework described previously in this thesis. The app probes for six different kinds of

critical learning events. These critical learning event reports are also coupled with an opportunity for

the students to write a sentence or two about the reason for the critical learning event occuring.

Qualitative approach: Semi‐structured interviews

The app‐based measurements are followed up with quarterly individual interviews aiming to uncover

links between strong emotions and resulting entrepreneurial learning outcomes. A semi‐structured

approach has been applied, using an interview template with themes covering learning and themes

covering emotions. In addition to the semi‐structured parts, each interview also includes a discussion

around app reports deemed to be particularly interesting from a research perspective, aiming to

guide the discussion to interesting events having occurred between interviews. All interviews are

recorded and some of them have been transcribed verbatim. To date 30 interviews have been

conducted, and an additional 30‐50 interviews are planned in the year to come.

Data analysis: Coding procedure

All data collected in this second phase will be coded in the qualitative data analysis software package

NVIVO, using two coding frameworks – one framework for sources of emotions and one framework

for entrepreneurial learning outcomes. So far six interviews have been coded, resulting in a

conference paper on links between strong emotions and learning outcomes, included in this thesis

(Lackéus, 2013). Each framework consists of 9 and 15 sub‐themes respectively. The coding

framework for sources of emotions is based on a working paper by Arpiainen et al. (2013), where the

author of this thesis is included as equally participating author (not appended to this thesis). This

working paper outlines main sources of strong emotions in two entrepreneurship education

programs in Finland and Namibia and one entrepreneurship education course in Estonia, see Table 2.

The coding framework for entrepreneurial learning outcomes is based on a framework developed by

Fisher et al. (2008), and has been further developed by drawing on work by other scholars, see Table

3.


Page 22

Table 2. Sources of strong emotions in entrepreneurship education (Arpiainen et al., 2013)

Main themes Sub themes used for coding in NVIVO

New kind of learning environment Uncertainty and confusion

Theory versus practice

Support from outside of the learning environment

Collaborative learning Team‐work experience

Time pressure

Individual differences between the students

Challenging tasks Overcoming knowledge and skills gaps

Interacting with outside world

Leadership and managing people

Table 3. Entrepreneurial learning outcomes framework.

Main theme Sub themes used for coding in NVIVO Source

Knowledge Mental models Kraiger et al. (1993)

Declarative knowledge Kraiger et al. (1993)

Self‐insight Kraiger et al. (1993)

Skills Marketing skills Fisher et al. (2008)

Opportunity skills Fisher et al. (2008)

Resource skills Fisher et al. (2008)

Interpersonal skills Fisher et al. (2008)

Learning skills Fisher et al. (2008)

Strategic skills Fisher et al. (2008)

Attitudes Entrepreneurial passion (“I want”) Fisher et al. (2008)

Self‐efficacy (“I can”) Fisher et al. (2008)

Entrepreneurial identity (I am / I value”) (Krueger, 2005, Krueger, 2007)

Proactiveness (“I do”) (Sánchez, 2011, Murnieks, 2007)

Uncertainty / ambiguity tolerance (“I dare”) (Sánchez, 2011, Murnieks, 2007)

Innovativeness (“I create”) (Krueger, 2005, Murnieks, 2007)

Perseverance (“I overcome”) (Markman et al., 2005, Cotton, 1991)

During the coding process more codes are added when the coding frameworks do not capture

important dimensions in the data. This kind of coding is called “open coding”, and is a method

suitable for developing theory or creating new theory (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). After the

interviews are coded, a coding matrix will be produced using functionality for this in the NVIVO

software package. In the working paper appended to this thesis (Lackéus, 2013), this matrix has

tentatively been used to identify salient connections between emotions and learning outcomes in

the data. Although it is based on only three out of the 13 respondents in this study, interesting links

between emotions and learning outcomes have already surfaced, outlined in Figure 4. This is

methodologically promising.

Figure 4. L

Summ

Paper

Venture CrePrograms –EntrepreneEducation aTechnology

Emotions inEntrepreneEducation: Areview

Links betweand Learninin EntrepreEducation

Paper 1

Transfer

The artic

creation

educatio

and sno

identifie

study, i

Links between

ary of app

eation – bridging urship and y Transfer

n urial A literature

een Emotions ng Outcomes neurial

1: “Venture

r”

cle explores

into educa

on and techn

owball samp

d as applyin

ncluding di

Licentiate The

emotions and

pended pa

Authors

Lackéus, M., Williams Middleton, K.

Lackéus, M.

Lackéus, M.

Creation P

how univers

ational desi

nology trans

pling over a

ng a venture

rect intervie

esis, Martin Lac

learning outco

apers

Status

Submitted. PresBCERC in 2011. Education + Traunder review.Refor publication, revisions remain

Submitted. (PreISBE, 2012. Will for publication ibefore LIC finaliof IJEBR has beethe paper since

Presented. Pres2013.

rograms –

sity‐based en

gn and del

sfer within th

two‐year p

e creation ap

ews and pa

ckéus, draft, ple

Page 23

mes based on c

sented at Submitted to ining in 2012, ecommended minor ning.

esented at be submitted in September zation, editor en asking for May)

sented at NFF

bridging En

ntrepreneurs

ivery, can

he university

period, 18 e

pproach. Te

articipatory

ease do not spre

coding matrix.

Subject / relevance Outlining empirical settingExploring venturcreation programs.

Mapping out anclarifying a key domain for this thesis.

First test of methodology in second phase ofthis study.

ntrepreneurs

ship program

bridge the

y environme

entrepreneu

n of these p

observation

ead. May 2013

Method

g. re

Empirical repaper. Mucase study

d Qualitativesystematic literature r

f

Empirical repaper. Mucase study

ship Educati

ms, incorpora

gap betwee

ent. Based o

rship educa

programs we

n during a

My rcont

esearch ultiple design.

Initiatdata cand aPreseBCERC

e review.

Sole cand p

esearch ultiple design.

Sole cand p

ion and Tec

ating real‐life

en entrepre

on a literatur

tion progra

ere selected

two‐day w

role / tribution tor of paper, collection nalysis. ntor at C.

contributorpresentor.

contributor presentor.

chnology

e venture

eneurship

re review

ms were

for case

workshop.


Page 24

Empirical findings were iteratively related to theory within entrepreneurship education and

technology transfer.

The article identifies the bridging capabilities of venture creation programs (VCPs) across five core

themes, illustrating the potential benefits of closer collaboration between entrepreneurship

education and technology transfer in a university environment. A definition for ‘venture creation

program’ is tested empirically. These programs are shown to be sophisticated laboratory

environments, allowing for clinical research towards the understanding of entrepreneurship and

technology transfer processes. Findings identify practical benefits of combining entrepreneurship

educators and technology transfer activities, such as increased value creation through not only new

firms, but also an entrepreneurially equipped graduate population. VCPs allow for ‘spin‐through’ of

innovative ideas in the university environment, while simultaneously contributing to entrepreneurial

learning.

This article presents findings from the first multiple case study into entrepreneurship educations

specifically designed to develop real‐life venture as part of the core curriculum. Findings provide

basis for investigating the value of integrating entrepreneurship education and technology transfer at

the university.

Paper 2: “Emotions in Entrepreneurial Education: A literature review”

The article is a qualitative systematic literature review on previous research primarily on emotions in

entrepreneurial education, but also on related research on emotions outside the domain of

entrepreneurship and enterprise. Particular attention is paid towards the role of emotions in

entrepreneurial learning and teaching – if, how and why the explicit acknowledgement and use of

affect can improve human learning in an entrepreneurial context. No literature review has been

conducted before on emotions in entrepreneurial education. A narrative approach was used to

generate keywords. A selection of keywords deemed to be relevant were subsequently used in

database searches. Citations from the 22 articles found were analysed in order to identify additional

sources outside of the entrepreneurship domain to include in the analysis. A complementary search

using a selection of keywords excluding the entrepreneurship domain was also made and combined

with co‐citation analysis.

Results indicate that the field of entrepreneurship education is largely disconnected from the

emotional aspects discussed in the fields of psychology, education, neuroscience and creativity.

There is an emotional revolution going on in psychology that has not yet reached the domain of

entrepreneurship education. Kolb is the only theorist outside entrepreneurship widely used in the

reviewed literature, and there are more contemporary alternatives to Kolb available that could be

more useful. Dewey and Gibb emerge as two integrative scholars that are especially important, as

well as the concept of constructivist learning environments. If concepts such as emotion, affection

and temperament can increase the understanding of entrepreneurial education, there are ample

opportunities to draw on literature outside of the entrepreneurship domain. The literature within the

entrepreneurial education domain is however very limited.

An emerging cadre of scholars in a wide array of fields such as psychology (Damasio, 1994), sociology

(Lutz and White, 1986, Heckman et al., 2006, Lindqvist and Vestman, 2011), philosophy (Hager,


Page 25

2005), education (Boler, 1999, Schutz and Pekrun, 2007, Lakomski and Evers, 2010) and

entrepreneurship education (Kyrö, 2008, Gibb, 2005) seem to increasingly argue that the traditional

rationalist‐cognitive model of studying human nature has reached its explanatory limit, and that

more focus needs to be put on emotions, behaviour and other related non‐cognitive constructs in

order to advance our understanding of human nature. This article is an attempt to build a first

foundation within the affective dimensions of entrepreneurship education to support further work in

this direction.

Paper 3: “Links between Emotions and Learning Outcomes in Entrepreneurial Education”

This paper investigates links between strong emotions and entrepreneurial learning outcomes in an

action‐based entrepreneurship education program. Students’ own experiences were assessed during

their participation in a master level university program where they were expected to start a real

venture as formal part of curriculum. An explicit focus on emotions in action‐based entrepreneurship

education is unusual in previous research, but can trigger new insights on antecedents to

entrepreneurial learning outcomes. It also represents a novel approach to assessing learning

outcomes of entrepreneurial education. A longitudinal design was applied following three students

during nine intensive months. Students were equipped with a mobile app‐based survey engine in

their smartphones, and were asked to momentarily register emotions and critical learning events

related to their educational experience. These app‐based measurements were followed up quarterly

with semi‐structured interviews to uncover links between strong emotions and resulting

entrepreneurial learning outcomes. Links were identified by using software analysis package NVIVO

and theoretical as well as open coding of data.

Findings indicate a large number of links between strong emotions and entrepreneurial learning

outcomes. Some links seem stronger than others. Three sources of emotions that seem to be

particularly linked to entrepreneurial learning outcomes are interaction with outside world,

uncertainty and ambiguity in learning environment and team‐work experience. These sources of

emotion seem to be linked to formation of entrepreneurial identity, increased self‐efficacy, increased

uncertainty and ambiguity tolerance and increased self‐insight. Strong emotions induced by action‐

based entrepreneurial education seem to primarily impact attitudinal learning outcomes. These

findings represent a novel approach to assessing learning outcomes within entrepreneurial

education. They also represent early empirical evidence for three seemingly effective design

principles of entrepreneurial education. Educators aiming to develop entrepreneurial competencies

should try to design a learning environment ripe of uncertainty and ambiguity where students

frequently are able and encouraged to interact with the outside world in a working environment

characterized by a team‐based approach. This study also represents an attempt to open the “black

box” of entrepreneurial learning, since it has been possible to uncover some of the mechanisms

behind the links observed between emotions and learning. Important limitations of this study include

a small number of interviewees, unknown transferability of results to other contexts and learning

environments, risk for individual bias in the data coding procedure and a lack of established

theoretical frameworks for strong emotions and learning outcomes within the domain of

entrepreneurship education.


Page 26

Discussion

Response to RQ1: Three tools that develop entrepreneurial competencies

This study set out to explore the global prevalence of entrepreneurship programs where students are

expected to create a real‐life venture, and then study some of them in‐depth. This was based on

previous research indicating that VCPs represent an interesting example of formal learning

environments where entrepreneurial competencies are developed to a large extent. This study focus

has resulted in the identification of three concepts anchored in the domain of entrepreneurship that

can facilitate development of entrepreneurial competencies – value creation, venture creation and

effectuation. I posit that all three concepts can be regarded as powerful psychological tools in line

with the famous Vygotskian educational psychology tradition. They can all become mentally

interalized by the learner, resulting in usage of these concepts to think with rather than to think

about. A successful educational intervention can result in learners more or less consciously using

them to do cultural work, asking themselves questions such as “How can I create value here”, “How

can I turn this into a venture”, and “What effects can I create here?”. I will now outline the three

concepts and their connection to development of entrepreneurial competencies as well as some

interesting side‐effects.

Value creation: a rare but powerful driving force to learning

One of the most common forms of entrepreneurial education is to ask students to create a plan for a

venture (Honig, 2004). This contrasts to the very rare form of entrepreneurial education explored in

this study where students are asked to create an actual venture. I posit that the underlying

differientiating variable here is the notion of creating real value for stakeholders outside the

educational institution. As an example, many VCP candidates examined in this study were excluded

from the final sample due to their deliberate termination of students’ simulated ventures upon

completion of the program. This indicates a common unwillingness or inability of educational

institutions to engage students in real‐life value creation activities as formal part of curriculum. It is

often seen as incompatible to higher education values and goals (Lackéus and Williams Middleton,

2013, p.3 and 13). Judging from the rare occurrence of VCPs, where three years of snowball sampling

yielded only 18 programs worldwide, I conclude that explicit focus on in‐curricular real‐life value

creation is rare at higher education institutions worldwide.

Empirical data from this study supports the proposition of value creation as a key factor, in that many

of the key interviewees at the studied VCPs emphasized the importance and ability of balancing

between learning goals and value creation goals (ibid, p.14). Data also indicates that letting students

create value for various stakeholders outside the university can cause them to reach a “tipping

point”, engaging with a curricular task to a substantially higher extent than they had ever done

previously in life (ibid, p.11). These students reach a level of motivation, commitment and emotional

ownership for their venture project very uncommon in educational settings. The positive effects of

high motivation on learning have been firmly established in previous research (Stipek, 1996), and are

supported also in this study. When the students that participated in this study felt valued, valuable

and appreciated by stakeholders outside their university, it increased their levels of happiness,

motivation and effort, in turn leading to a number of highly sought after entrepreneurial learning

outcomes such as increased perseverance, increased tolerance for uncertainty, increased self‐


Page 27

efficacy, increased entrepreneurial passion and developed entrepreneurial identity (Lackéus, 2013,

p.17).

Previous research has identified the “venture creation approach” to learning (Ollila and Williams‐

Middleton, 2011). This study now adds to this line of research by proposing a “value creation

approach” to learning, or as Dewey might have put it: “Learning by creating value” – a version of his

famous approach “learning by doing”. Here one could argue that venture creation and value creation

are variations of one same approach to learning. It is however quite possible to conceive an

educational program emphasizing value creation without employing a venture creation approach. It

is also possible and has indeed been observed in this study that there are programs employing a

venture creation approach but excluding real‐life value creation from the desired short‐term

outcomes, instead emphasizing learning outcomes exclusively.

It is surprising to find that learning goals are the norm and value creation goals are the exception in

higher education, given the strong motivational and learning effects a value creation focus can have

on learners. This leads us to a major proposition resulting from this study:

Venture creation: orchestrating value creation processes

Even if value creation can be integrated in curricular designs without a venture creation emphasis, it

is evident from the studied VCPs that the use of a venture creation approach is a major driving force

behind these programs (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2013). This approach allows a large

number of different stakeholders to align to a unified process of creating a venture. It defines the

rules of engagement, sets the stage in which value is created and contributes with a distinct set of

procedures, vocabulary, practices and theory to draw from. The venture can be regarded as

humanity’s most advanced vehicle for value creation, and thus becomes instrumental in an

educational environment focused on tandem learning and value creation. Of particular importance is

the role of a venture creation approach in connecting with a community of practice, which is one of

the cornerstones of situated learning theory (Wenger, 1998, Lave and Wenger, 1991) and also a

cornerstone of the studied VCPs (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2013).

In addition to aligning curriculum‐based value creation activities in general, a venture creation

approach can also contribute to university technology transfer processes. VCPs contribute to

technology transfer processes in a number of ways according to this study (Lackéus and Williams

Middleton, 2013). They increase the number of stakeholders engaged in the technology transfer

process. They increase the assessment efficiency of inventions disclosed at a university. They also

provide match‐making between innovators and entrepreneurial individuals at the university. Some

advanced and mature VCP approaches also generate consistent financial results in terms of a

constant stream of created and fast‐growing ventures, particularly at North Carolina State University

in United States and at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden (Lackéus, 2012b). VCPs

constitute an opportunity to alleviate the dreaded “valley of death” (Barr et al., 2009) in early stages

of university commercialization.

P1: Adding value creation goals to the curriculum can increase learners’ motivation

and enhance the capacity to develop entrepreneurial competencies.


Page 28

Despite these advantages of a venture creation approach and VCPs, it is a very rare phenomenon at

higher education institutions worldwide according to this study. Some explanations have been

uncovered (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2013), such as reluctance from technology transfer

officials to consign valuable intellectual property to inexperienced students, interdisciplinary

challenges in the usual silo structured university, unpredictability aspects of integrating venture

creation in curriculum design and significant resource requirements.

Again, it is surprising to find that the venture creation approach is so rare, given the strong learning

and value creation effects a venture creation focus can have for universities. This leads us to another

major proposition resulting from this study:

Effectuation: An iterative and social learning process

Many of the VCPs in this study emphasize the importance of a process‐based and iterative curriculum

design embedded in an entrepreneurial community, in contrast to the traditional content‐based

curriculum design largely detached from real‐life stakeholders. This design approach is viewed as a

prerequisite for learning to become entrepreneurial, mirroring the experience of real‐life

entrepreneurs. Empirical data also shows that frequent and iterative interactions with the outside

world contribute to the development of entrepreneurial competencies among the students at a VCP

(Lackéus, 2013, p.16). As highlighted in this study (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2013, p.13),

these curriculum design principles are in alignment with the effectual logic proposed by Sarasvathy

(2001) and also aligns with viewing entrepreneurship as a method for human action as proposed by

Sarasvathy and Venkataraman (2011).

Such a curriculum design is however the exception rather than the norm in most educational

institutions today (Leitch and Harrison, 1999, Mwasalwiba, 2010, Gibb, 2011, Tynjälä, 1999). I

propose that the scholarly contributions by Sarasvathy and colleagues therefore constitute highly

valuable tools for educators intending to implement a process‐based, iterative and socially situated

curriculum design. They legitimize an approach that has previously been difficult to implement at

educational institutions due to cultural, paradigmatic and value‐based constraints (Ardalan, 2008,

Tynjälä, 1999). They also allow for giving some firm recommendations to teachers and learners

through the practice oriented work by Sarasvathy and colleagues in terms of course books (see for

example Read et al., 2011) and other teaching material (see for example www.effectuation.org).

Thereby a third major proposition of this study is:

P2: Adding a venture creation program to the curricular offering of a higher education institution can

increase its technology transfer efficiency and its capacity to develop entrepreneurial competencies.

P3: Applying effectuation theory to curriculum design can increase the organizational legitimacy and

effectiveness of a process‐based, iterative and socially situated learning environment.


Page 29

Response to RQ2: How these tools develop entrepreneurial competencies

Having outlined three psychological tools that have been found to facilitate development of

entrepreneurial competencies in formal learning environments we will now continue by discussing

how they do it. We will then need to explore deeper into the entrepreneurial learning “black box”,

trying to understand what happens when students become more entrepreneurial.

A basic tenet of this study’s research design has been to explore emotional aspects of

entrepreneurial education. This was in line with recommendations from leading scholars in the field,

such as Dean Shepherd, Jason Cope, Paula Kyrö and Allan Gibb (see Lackéus, 2012a). The role of

emotions in education is an under‐researched area in general (Pekrun, 2005), but with particular

explanatory power in the domain of entrepreneurship due to the “emotional complexity and

intimacy of the relationship between the entrepreneur and the small business” (Cope, 2003,

p.440).

This approach led to the exploration of links between disjunctural and emotionally laden experiences

and developed entrepreneurial competencies in an action‐based entrepreneurial education program.

Using the methodology outlined earlier, this exploration uncovered numerous links, outlined in

Figure 4. Interaction with the outside world resulted in increased self‐efficacy. Uncertainty and

ambiguity in learning environment resulted in increased tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity.

Team‐work experience resulted in increased self‐insight. This leads us to another major proposition

of this study:

If we now add to this the connection between educational design and disjunctural emotional events

we reach an explanation to why the previously outlined psychological tools foster development of

entrepreneurial competencies. Value creation, venture creation and effectuation all contribute to

increasing students’ interaction with outside world. They all can cause increased uncertainty and

ambiguity in a learning environment. In the case of the studied VCPs the most common format for

applying them is the team‐based approach. That gives us a link from educational design through

emotional events to entrepreneurial learning outcomes, as shown in Figure 5. In Figure 6 these

connections are exemplified with the case of interaction with outside world, the most frequent link

in the empirical data of this study (Lackéus, 2013, p.12). From this we infer our next proposition:

P4: A learning environment ripe of uncertainty and ambiguity where students are encouraged to

interact with the outside world in teams can facilitate development of entrepreneurial competencies

P5: Emotional events and situations can be considered an explanatory proxy between

educational design tools and developed entrepreneurial competencies.

Figure 5. E

Figure 6. entrepren

Some ad

In additi

from this

From a t

learner a

Emotional even

The example neurial learning

dditional imp

on to the ab

s study. Thes

theoretical p

and emotion

Licentiate The

nts as a proxy b

of interactiong outcomes.

plications

bove outline

se are outlin

perspective,

n based app

esis, Martin Lac

between educa

n with the ou

d primary pr

ed in detail i

escaping the

roach to the

ckéus, draft, ple

Page 30

ational design a

utside world a

ropositions,

in Table 4.

e usual ratio

e domain of

ease do not spre

and entreprene

acting as a pr

there are so

nalist bias an

entreprene

ead. May 2013

eurial learning o

roxy between

ome other im

nd instead a

urial educati

outcomes.

educational d

mplications s

applying a qu

ion has prov

design and

stemming

ualitative,

ven quite


Page 31

fruitful so far, at least to the extent that the findings from this study are deemed to be worthwhile

and interesting. Some old and new frameworks and theoretical perspectives largely unconsidered

previously in the domain of entrepreneurial education have been identified and to a varying extent

applied in this study. These include the “whole person” based theory of human learning by Peter

Jarvis, the activity theory based stepwise instructional design procedure by Piotr Galperin, the

cognitive tools approach to education by Kieran Egan, the pragmatist perspectives on education by

John Dewey, the theory of the person by John Heron and the still emerging constructivist education

perspectives advocated by Päivi Tynjälä, Thomas Duffy and many others. Further research in the

domain of entrepreneurial education can benefit from considering these theories and frameworks

further, taking the field further than has so far been possible through titan scholars such as Allan

Gibb and David Kolb. A framework for entrepreneurial competencies has also been compiled as a

result of this study, which is lacking in the field.

From a practical perspective viewing emotional events as a proxy between educational design and

developed entrepreneurial competencies opens up for new approaches to assessment in

entrepreneurial education, a topic of interest to policymakers and educators. The VCP case study has

also revealed and described a number of learning environments that can be interesting to study for

educational practitioners. These VCPs represent interesting examples of truly action‐based

entrepreneurial education, and most of them exhibit strong treatment effects on students making

them candidates for good practice studies. These environments are also interesting due to their

evident capability to balance between multiple dualisms, such as theory versus practice, action

versus reflection and learning versus value creation (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2013, p.14‐15).

From a methodological perspective this study has explored some novel methods and empirics. The

app‐based experience sampling method combined with interviews and NVIVO software based data

analysis with coding matrices is a novel approach well worth replicating in other settings. Indeed, we

have already been contacted by three different groups in Sweden and Denmark showing interest in

replicating parts of or the entire methodological design in their environments. Also the empirical

setting itself in this study represents a novel approach to researching processes of entrepreneurial

behavior, in that it can be regarded as a “clinical” laboratory environment (Schein, 1993) allowing for

study of entrepreneurial behavior as it occurs as opposed to in hindsight. It is notable that none of

the other VCP environments found in this study had done extensive research endeavors using their

student base as empirics. The wide definition of entrepreneurship applied in this study also

represents a useful approach still unusual in entrepreneurial education research. It can be concluded

that this definitional approach has served its purpose well for a study in this field. Making students

more entrepreneur‐ial seems to be a more viable goal in entrepreneurial education than making

students into heroic entrepreneurs.


Page 32

Table 4. Some secondary implications and related contributions from this thesis.

Area Problem Description How this thesis adresses it Implication P1 P2 P3 RQ

0. All areas below

Strong rationalist bias

Too much focus on behaviorist / cognitivist models, too little focus on emotions, meaning and non‐cognitivism.

Emotion in entrepreneurial education has been explored through an in‐depth literature review and by empirically studying emotions in entrepreneurial education.

Theoretical, methodological

X X X 2

1. Entrepre‐neurial

Desired outcome vague

No consensus around what entrepreneurial competencies are. Not even consensus on a competencies approach.

A tentative framework for entrepreneurial competencies has been developed and empirically applied, based on previous literature on entrepreneurial competencies.

Theoretical, methodological

X 1,2

Too narrow definitions used

Much focus is on creating Steve Jobs’es, while the more interesting effects are motivational and attitudinal .

A wide definition of what it means to be or become entrepreneurial has been applied when empirically studying students developing entrepreneurial competencies.

Methodological X 2

2. Entrepre‐neurial education

Uninteresting empirics abound

Much research is based on learning environments that do not lead to strong entrepreneurial learning outcomes.

A strong focus on establishing the relevancy of the empirical setting. Research in phase one has shown that the setting studied in phase two is worthwhile to study. Practical X 1,2

Too reliant on old scholars

A domain largely reliant on Kolb and Gibb for its “theoretical” foundation, scholars with too weak theoretical, philosophical and empirical foundations.

Previously under‐utilized scholars and frameworks applicable to the field have been identified. Scholars such as Jarvis, Dewey, Egan, Galperin and Heron. Frameworks such as constructivist education, activity theory and situated learning theory.

Theoretical X 1,2

Too much dualism

“Do this not that”, we and them thinking, abundance of two‐column tables, need for paradigm shifts.

Venture Creation Programs have been shown capable of balancing between multiple dualisms, thus bridging the gap between education and the outside world.

Practical X 2

Rationalist bias in assessment

Too much reliance on causal models of explaining entrepreneurial education and its outcomes.

A qualitative approach relying on emotional events as a proxy between educational design and entrepreneurial learning outcomes has been developed and tested.

Theoretical, practical

X 2

Lack of practical principles

In theory there is consensus around action‐based approaches, but this has not impacted practice yet due to inconclusive empirical evidence for practices.

Some early empirically driven results point to three effective design principles for entrepreneurial education – focus on interaction with outside world, encourage uncertainty and ambiguity in learning environment and work with a team approach.

Practical X 2

3. Entrepre‐neurial learning

Lab environ‐ments under‐utilized

Too little research on formal learning environments where entrepreneurial learning can be studied as it occurs as opposed to in hindsight.

Venture Creation Programs have been identified as a relevant “clinical” laboratory environment, where entrepreneurial behaviour can be studied as it occurs. Methodological X 2

”Black box” not understood

Patterns of entrepreneurial learning processes are under‐researched and poorly understood.

A method has been developed and tested that can uncover chains of events from educational design to learning outcomes.

Methodological X 2

4. Learning Neglected role of disjuncture

The importance of disjunctural events for learning has been neglected for long and on wide scale.

A method has been developed that explicitly probes for disjunctural events and explores antecedents and consequences of them.

Methodological X 2

Neglect of action and emotion

The importance of action and emotion in learning has been largely neglected, such as downplaying situated learning approaches.

A set of integrative theories taking into account “whole person learning” have been identified and applied empirically through a research design probing action‐based educational programs for emotional events.

Theoretical, methodological,

practical X X X 1,2

5. Education Strong focus on measurability

Marketization and neoliberal trends drive focus towards measurable knowledge and away from entrepreneurial competencies.

A method has been developed capable of highlighting and explaining entrepreneurial learning outcomes previously difficult to assess and legitimize.

Methodological, practical

X 2

Embedded in larger battle

Unknowingly entrepreneurial education is part of a larger battle between traditional and progressive / constructivist education.

The entrepreneurship anchored “mind” tools identified in this thesis could turn out to be useful outside the field of entrepreneurial education in order to bridge between traditional and progressive / constructivist education, representing a “third way”.

Theoretical, methodological,

practical

Covered in the kappa discussion

1


Page 33

Future research – mastering the balancing act

This study has revealed that entrepreneurial education suffers from a dualistic problem. Although

VCPs seem to be quite capable of balancing between theory and practice or between reflection and

action (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2013, p.14‐15), this is not the case for most entrepreneurial

education worldwide. Mwasalwiba (2010) states that in theory most scholars agree that action‐based

pedagogical approaches are the most suitable for entrepreneurial education, but in practice the most

widespread pedagogical approaches are theoretical, traditional and passive – lectures, business plan

creation, guest speakers and class discussions. The reasons for this are primarily cost, culture, lack of

methods and lack of incentives (Mwasalwiba, 2010, Ardalan, 2008). This has led to a situation where

most genuinely entrepreneurial initiatives at higher education institutions are extracurricular, leaving

most students out of the entrepreneurial loop completely. Some scholars even suggest that “most

educational programs are nothing but temporary fashion” (Lautenschläger and Haase, 2011, p.147).

The solution many leading scholars alongside international entities such as EU and World Economic

Forum argue for is a paradigm shift in education from traditional to entrepreneurial approaches

(Binks et al., 2006, Hynes and Richardson, 2007, Wilson, 2008, European_Commission, 2010, Gibb,

2002, Kyrö, 2005, Moroz et al., 2010, European_Commission, 2006, Volkmann et al., 2009). I however

posit that we cannot afford to wait for a paradigm shift to come. Instead we need to explore

alternative pathways. To find this “third way” for entrepreneurial education, we first need to map

out the terrain for this dualistic problem.

I posit that the “fault line” between traditional and entrepreneurial approaches actually goes way

beyond the domain of entrepreneurial education. It starts in the domain of philosophy of science

with its binary opposition between positivism and interpretivism (Cunliffe, 2011). It passes through

general educational philosophy and its century‐long battle between traditionalists and progressivists

for control over instructional design practices (Labaree, 2005). It arrives in the domain of

entrepreneurship where scholars contrast a reductionist observation‐based causal logic with a

commitment and action‐based effectual logic (Sarasvathy and Dew, 2005, Sarasvathy and

Venkataraman, 2011). It finally reaches the domain of entrepreneurial education, where we find the

aforementioned scholars and international organizations having spent decades sketching on their

usual two‐column tables of “their” and “our” approach to education (for an early example, see

Cotton, 1991). I outline this “fault line” in Figure 7, consisting of five main dualisms cutting across

four domains.

In Figure 7 we see many of the aspects covered in this study. The complex, social and process‐based

nature of a VCP approach has been described in‐depth. Students’ appreciation of the emotional

attachment and practice orientation of a VCP has been amply captured. Still the educational system

demands also of a VCP to be manageable in terms of individual assessment, theory content of high

academic standards and a detached faculty evaluating learners in the prevailing transaction‐based

educational model. Perhaps the rare VCP approach can help us finding a “third way” in

entrepreneurial education.

I will now consider some solutions from domains outside entrepreneurial education. Egan (2008) has

proposed a cognitive tools approach as a “third way” for general education, a flexible yet criteria

based way between the rigidity of traditional education and the vagueness of progressivism (ibid, p.

143). Ja

thought/

endeavo

yin and y

this kind

Whitehe

Th

life

inf

so

Figure 7. F

Using th

study we

dualisms

arvis (2006

/emotion, t

our seems wo

yang would

d of interact

ead (1967):

he justification

e, by uniting t

formation, bu

ociety. A unive

Five different d

e developed

e can now ar

s. They are:

Licentiate The

) and Hag

heory/practi

orthwhile. In

creatively ev

tion is the

n for a univer

the young and

ut it imparts

ersity which fa

dualisms cutting

d framework

rticulate som

esis, Martin Lac

er (2005)

ice, are cru

ndeed, as Ch

volve myriad

primary task

rsity is that it

d the old in th

it imaginative

ails in this resp

g across four di

in Figure 7 a

me questions

ckéus, draft, ple

Page 34

state that

cial to our

en et al. (20

d objects and

k of univers

preserves the

he imaginative

ely. At least,

pect has no re

ifferent literatu

and other pe

s to guide fur

ease do not spre

resolving

understand

10) state, “in

d things.” (p

sities, judgin

e connection

e consideratio

this is the fu

eason for exist

ure domains

erspectives d

rther researc

ead. May 2013

dualisms su

ing of hum

nteraction be

.181). One c

g from edu

between kno

on of learning.

unction which

tence. (p. 97)

eveloped an

ch addressing

uch as mi

man learning

etween two

could even a

ucational phi

owledge and t

. The universit

h it should pe

nd described

g the five ide

nd/body,

g, so this

forces of

rgue that

ilosopher

the zest of

ty imparts

erform for

in this

entified


Page 35

How can entrepreneurship contribute with psychological tools that…

1. …simplify a complex, multidisciplinary and holistic constructivist learning environment?

2. …preserve the concrete and individual aspects in a social learning environment?

3. …inject more content and linearity into an iterative learning process?

4. …facilitate detached reflection in an emotional and action‐oriented learning environment?

5. …absorb more theoretical knowledge into a practice‐based experiential learning

environment?

We will now finish this thesis by tentatively putting two of the identified psychological tools to the

test on these five questions.

Proposed psychological tool #1: Value creation

Value creation addresses question no 1 in that it constitutes a simple yet powerful goal that complex

constructivist learning environments can be organized around. It also addresses question no 2 in that

it allows for an individually oriented and very concrete outcome of a social learning environment.

The domain of entrepreneurship also contains various frameworks for value creation that can be

used to give answers to question no 3 above, making the iterative and complex process slightly more

manageable by an educational institution and thus perhaps quasi‐linear. One example is the Business

Model Generation approach proposed by Osterwalder (2004), which has reached global usage and

acclaim in a very short time due to its simplification potential. Another similarly widespread example

relevant to question no 3 is the “Customer Development Process” proposed by Blank (2005) as a

means to control the early product development phase of starting a company. If we assume that

success is not a prerequisite for learning, we can assume that failure to create value will yield equal

amount of learning, or even more learning. This would then provide some answer to question 4 in

that both success and failure will trigger reflection. Regarding question no 5, I propose a starting

point of the value creation process to be some knowledge domain or theoretical concept coupled

with the question “For whom can this knowledge be valuable / rewarding?”, and from that point

initiate a process of value creation. This approach could then provide a balance between theory and

practice.

From this analysis we can conclude that value creation as a psychological tool could be quite a

constructive means to balance between traditional and progressive education. Some previous

research supports this. Surlemont (2007) reports from a research project in Belgium where pupils

participated in experiential learning projects where they created value for people outside their class,

such as younger pupils, parents, friends, tourists, companies, etc. When initial teacher scepticism had

been overcome, many were stunned with the levels of enthusiasm and commitment shown by the

pupils. This was mainly due to increased ability to make sense of their own learning, increased self‐

confidence among learners and a sense of pride due to external exposure.

Proposed psychological tool #2: Effectuation

Addressing question no 1 and 3 we can see that the work of Sarasvathy and colleagues over the last

decade has provided a framework that has the potential to greatly simplify complex constructivist


Page 36

learning environments through, and to provide content through effectuation based teaching material

and research articles. Question 3 can also be addressed with a call for teachers to focus on “the

controllable aspects of an unpredictable future” (Sarasvathy, 2001, p.251), a way to render the

iterative process more quasi‐linear. Regarding question no 2 we can see that the four basic questions

outlined in the effectuation approach ‐ “Who am I?”, “What do I know?”, “Whom do I know?” and

“What can I do?” – foster a concrete connection to the individual since they are so immediately

focusing on the self. The “expanding cycle of resources” outlined by Sarasvathy and Dew (2005)

always starts each iteration with self‐oriented questions. If this recipe is followed in designed

learning environments it could be said to promote repeated self‐reflection, and thus address

question no 4, promoting some kind of structured and detached evaluation of oneself. Question no 5

is also answered by one of these questions, i.e. the “What do I know?” question. This specific

question could be connected to curriculum content, balancing between theory and practice in a

relatively elegant way.

Also effectuation seems to be a powerful psychological tool possible to integrate into formal learning

environments with a multitude of benefits related to dualistic problems in entrepreneurial

education.

To summarize, a psychological tools approach to development of entrepreneurial competencies in

education can be an alternative pathway to advancing the field of entrepreneurial education, both

from a theoretical perspective when trying to understand how entrepreneurial competencies are

developed, and from a practictioner perspective when trying to implement some of the methods and

tools that are believed to lead to desired effects in terms of developing students’ entrepreneurial

competencies. The proposed approach can also be of relevance outside the domain of

entrepreneurial education, supplying new pedagogical tools anchored in the field of

entrepreneurship to explore a “third way” in general education.


Page 37

References

Amrein, A. L. & Berliner, D. C. 2002. High‐stakes testing & student learning. education policy analysis archives, 10, 18.

Ardalan, K. 2008. The philosophical foundation of the lecture‐versus‐case controversy: Its implications for course goals, objectives, and contents. International Journal of Social Economics, 35, 15‐34.

Ardichvili, A. 2003. Constructing socially situated learning experiences in human resource development: An activity theory perspective. Human Resource Development International, 6, 5‐20.

Arievitch, I. M. & Stetsenko, A. 2000. The Quality of Cultural Tools and Cognitive Development: Gal’perin’s Perspective and Its Implications1. Human Development, 43, 69‐92.

Arpiainen, R.‐L., Lackéus, M., Täks, M. & Tynjälä, P. 2013. The sources and dynamics of emotions in entrepreneurship education. Working paper.

Atkinson, P., Delamont, S. & Hammersley, M. 1988. Qualitative research traditions: A British response to Jacob. Review of Educational research, 58, 231‐250.

Ball, S. J. 1998. Big policies/small world: an introduction to international perspectives in education policy.

Barr, S. H., Baker, T. & Markham, S. K. 2009. Bridging the Valley of Death: Lessons Learned From 14 Years of Commercialization of Technology Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 370‐388.

Bennis, W. G. & O’toole, J. 2005. How business schools lost their way. Harvard business review, 83, 96‐104.

Biesta, G. 2007. Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence‐based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57, 1‐22.

Binks, M., Starkey, K. & Mahon, C. L. 2006. Entrepreneurship education and the business school. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18, 1‐18.

Bird, B. 1995. Towards a theory of entrepreneurial competency. Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, 2, 51‐72.

Blank, S. 2005. The four steps to the epiphany, Cafepress. com. Boler, M. 1999. Feeling power: emotions and education, Psychology Press. Botham, R. & Mason, C. 2007. Good practice in enterprise development in UK higher education.

In: NCGE (ed.) Research Report. Broadfoot, P. 2000. Comparative education for the 21st century: retrospect and prospect.

Comparative education, 36, 357‐371. Bruyat, C. & Julien, P.‐A. 2001. Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business

Venturing, 16, 165‐180. Burgoyne, J. 1989. Creating the managerial portfolio: building on competency approaches to

management development. Management Learning, 20, 56‐61. Chamard, J. 1989. Public education: its effect on entrepreneurial characteristics. Journal of Small

Business & Entrepreneurship, 6, 23‐29. Chen, H.‐J., Tsai, Y.‐H., Chang, S.‐H. & Lin, K.‐H. 2010. Bridging the systematic thinking gap between

East and West: an insight into the Yin‐Yang‐based system theory. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23, 173‐189.

Cope, J. 2003. Entrepreneurial Learning and Critical Reflection. Management Learning, 34, 429‐450. Cope, J. 2005. Toward a Dynamic Learning Perspective of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory

and Practice, 29, 373‐397. Cope, J. 2010. Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Journal of Business Venturing. Cope, J. & Watts, G. 2000. Learning by doing ‐ An exploration of experience, critical incidents and

reflection in entrepreneurial learning.


Page 38

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.

Cotton, J. 1991. Enterprise education experience: a manual for school‐based in‐service training. Education+ Training, 33.

Cunliffe, A. L. 2011. Crafting Qualitative Research. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 647‐673. Damasio, A. R. 1994. Descartes' error, Putnam New York. De Faoite, D., Henry, C., Johnston, K. & Van Der Sijde, P. 2003. Education and training for

entrepreneurs: a consideration of initiatives in Ireland and The Netherlands. Education+ Training, 45, 430‐438.

Deignan, T. 2010. Using activity theory and Q methodology to model activity and subjectivity in enterprise education. Assessment, Teaching & Learning Journal (Leeds Met), 37‐41.

Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education, New York, Free press.

Dilworth, R. L. 1998. Action learning in a nutshell. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 11, 28‐43. Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and entrepreneurship, New York, Harper & Row. Dubois, A. & Gadde, L.‐E. 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. Dwerryhouse, R. 2001. Real work in the 16‐19 curriculum: AVCE business and Young Enterprise.

Education+ Training, 43, 153‐162. Egan, K. 1997. The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding, University of

Chicago Press. Egan, K. 2005. An imaginative approach to teaching. San Francisco. Egan, K. 2008. The future of education: Reimagining our schools from the ground up, Yale University

Press. Egan, K. & Gajdamaschko, N. 2003. Some cognitive tools of literacy. In: Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev,

V. S. & Miller, S. M. (eds.) Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by expanding. An activity‐theoretical approach to developmental

research. Engeström, Y. 2009. Expansive learning ‐ Toward an activity‐theoretical reconceptualization. In:

Illeris, K. (ed.) Contemporary Theories of Learning. Abingdon: Routledge. Erkkilä, K. 2000. Entrepreneurial education: mapping the debates in the United States, the United

Kingdom and Finland, Routledge. Ernest, P. 1995. 26 ‐ The One and the Many. In: Steffe, L. P. & Gale, J. E. (eds.) Constructivism in

education. Lawrence Erlbaum Hillsdale. Etzkowitz, H. 2003. Research groups as ‘quasi‐firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university.

Research Policy, 32, 109‐121. Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode

2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109‐123.

European_Commission. Entrepreneurship education in Europe: Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning. 2006.

European_Commission 2008. Survey of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe. Brussels: DG Enterprise and Industry.

European_Commission 2010. Towards greater cooperation and coherence in entrepreneurship education. Brussels: DG Enterprise and Industry.

European_Commission 2012. Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe ‐ National Strategies, Curricula and Learning Outcomes.

Falk‐Lundqvist, Å., Hallberg, P.‐G., Leffler, E. & Svedberg, G. 2011. Entreprenöriell pedagogik i skolan: Drivkrafter för elevers lärande, Stockholm, Liber.

Fayolle, A. & Gailly, B. 2008. From craft to science ‐ Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32, 569‐593.


Page 39

Fisher, S., Graham, M. & Compeau, M. 2008. Starting from Scratch: Understanding the Learning Outcomes of Undergraduate Entrepreneurship Education'. Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Applications, 313‐340.

Fleer, M. 2011. Motives as a central concept for learning. In: McInerney, D. M., Walker, R. A. & Liem, G. A. D. (eds.) Sociocultural Theories of Learning and Motivation: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Information Age Publishing Inc.

Flick, U. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research, SAGE Publications. Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case‐study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12, 219. From, J. 2006. A Field of Paradoxes? 14th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research, May 11‐13.

Stockholm, Sweden. Garrison, J. 1995. Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism.

American Educational Research Journal, 32, 716‐740. Gartner, W. B. 1990. What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of

Business Venturing, 5, 15‐28. Gibb, 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 Reviews, 4, 233‐269.

Gibb, A. 2005. Towards the entrepreneurial university ‐ entrepreneurship education as a lever for change. National Council for Graduate entrepreneurship.

Gibb, A. 2011. Concepts into practice: meeting the challenge of development of entrepreneurship educators around an innovative paradigm: The case of the International Entrepreneurship Educators' Programme (IEEP). International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17, 146‐165.

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, 11‐34.

Gondim, S. M. G. & Mutti, C. 2011. Affections in learning situations: a study of an entrepreneurship skills development course. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23.

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. & King, W. 1997. Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten‐year literature review. International Small Business Journal, 15.

Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Klassen, S. & Klassen, C. F. 2012. Encouraging a “Romantic Understanding” of Science: The Effect of the Nikola Tesla Story. Science & Education, 1‐28.

Haenen, J. 1996. Piotr Galperin: Psychologist in Vygotsky's Footsteps, Nova Science Pub Inc. Hager, P. 2005. Philosophical Accounts of Learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37. Haigh, J. 2007. Expansive learning in the university setting: The case for simulated clinical experience.

Nurse Education in Practice, 7, 95‐102. Heckman, J. J. & Rubinstein, Y. 2001. The importance of noncognitive skills: Lessons from the GED

testing program. The American Economic Review, 91, 145‐149. Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J. & Urzua, S. 2006. The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor

market outcomes and social behavior. National Bureau of Economic Research. Heinonen, J. & Hytti, U. 2010. Back to basics: the role of teaching in developing the entrepreneurial

university. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 11, 283‐292. Henry, C., Hill, F. & Leitch, C. 2005. Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship

be taught? Part II. Education + Training, 47, 158‐169. Heron, J. 1992. Feeling and personhood: Psychology in another key, SAGE Publications Limited. Heron, J. 2009. Life cycles and learning cycles. In: Illeris, K. (ed.) Contemporary Theories of Learning.

Abingdon: Routledge. Hilgard, E. R. 1980. The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection, and conation. Journal of the History of

the Behavioral Sciences, 16.


Page 40

Hindle, K. 2007. Teaching entrepreneurship at university: from the wrong building to the right philosophy. In: Fayolle, A. (ed.) Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Hofer, A.‐R., Potter, J., Fayolle, A., Gulbrandsen, M., Hannon, P., Harding, R., Dahlstrand, Å. L. & Phan, P. H. 2010. From Strategy to Practice in University Entrepreneurship Support: Strengthening Entrepreneurship and Local Economic Development in Eastern Germany: Youth, Entrepreneurship and Innovation. In: OECD (ed.). OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED)

Holman, D., Pavlica, K. & Thorpe, R. 1997. Rethinking Kolb's theory of experiential learning in management education. Management Learning, 28, 135‐148.

Honig, B. 2004. Entrepreneurship Education: Toward a Model of Contingency‐Based Business Planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 258‐273.

Hoover, D. & Whitehead, C. 1975. An experiential‐cognitive methodology in the first course in management: Some preliminary results. Simulation games and experiential learning in action, 2, 23‐25.

Hynes, B. & Richardson, I. 2007. Entrepreneurship education ‐ A mechanism for engaging and exchanging with the small business sector. Education + Training, 49, 732‐744.

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, 11‐23.

Jamieson, I. 1984. Schools and Enterprise. In: Watts, A. & Moran, P. (eds.) Education for enterprise. Cambridge: CRAC.

Jarvis, P. 2006. Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning, New York, NY, Routledge. Jarvis, P. 2009. Learning to be a person in society, Routledge. Jarvis, P. 2010. Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice, New York, Routledge. Johannisson, B. 1991. University training for entrepreneurship: Swedish approaches.

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 3, 67‐82. Johannisson, B., Madsén, T. & Hjorth, D. 1997. I entreprenörskapets tecken: en studie av skolning i

förnyelse, Stockholm, Närings‐ och Handelsdepartementet. Johnson, C. 1988. Enterprise education and training. British Journal of Education and Work, 2, 61‐65. Jonassen, D. H. & Rohrer‐Murphy, L. 1999. Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist

learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 61‐79. Jones, O. & Holt, R. 2008. The creation and evolution of new business ventures: an activity theory

perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15, 51‐73. Katz, J. A. 2003. The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education:

1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 283‐300. Katz, J. A. 2008. Fully Mature but Not Fully Legitimate: A Different Perspective on the State of

Entrepreneurship Education*. Journal of Small Business Management, 46, 550‐566. Kirby, D. A. 2004. Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge? Education +

Training, 46, 510‐519. Kirschner, P. A. & Erkens, G. 2006. Cognitive tools and mindtools for collaborative learning. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 35, 199‐209. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. 2006. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not

work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem‐based, experiential, and inquiry‐based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75‐86.

Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Kourilsky, M. 1980. Predictors of Entrepreneurship in a Simulated Economy*. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 14, 175‐198.

Kozulin, A. 2003. Psychological tools and mediated learning. Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context, 15‐38.


Page 41

Kozulin, A. & Presseisen, B. Z. 1995. Mediated learning experience and psychological tools: Vygotsky's and Feuerstein's perspectives in a study of student learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 67‐75.

Krueger, J., Norris F. 2005. The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship. In: Acs, Z. J. & Audretsch, D. B. (eds.) Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary Survey and introduction. New York: Springer.

Krueger, N. F. 2007. What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking. ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE, 31, 123‐138.

Kuratko, D. F. 2005. The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 577.

Kyrö, P. 2005. Entrepreneurial learning in a cross‐cultural context challenges previous learning paradigms. In: Kyrö, P. & Carrier, C. (eds.) The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross‐Cultural University Context. Hämeenlinna: University of Tampere.

Kyrö, P. 2008. A theoretical framework for teaching and learning entrepreneurship. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 2.

Labaree, D. F. 2005. Progressivism, schools and schools of education: An American romance. Paedagogica historica, 41, 275‐288.

Lackéus, M. 2010. From best practice to benchmarking indicators in entrepreneurship education programs. 2nd Entrepreneurship and innovation in Nordic education conference. Luleå, Sweden.

Lackéus, M. 2012a. Emotions in Entrepreneurial Education: A Literature Review. Proceedings of Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE) Conference. Dublin.

Lackéus, M. Venture Creation Programs ‐ 14 case descriptions of participating programs at ELF conference 2012. Avaliable for download at www.vcplist.com. Entrepreneurial Learning Forum, 2012b Gothenburg. Chalmers University of Technology.

Lackéus, M. 2013. Links between Emotions and Learning Outcomes in Entrepreneurial Education. 22:nd Nordic Academy of Management conference. Reykjavik.

Lackéus, M., Lundqvist, M. & Williams‐Middleton, K. 2011. Obstacles to Establishing Venture Creation Based Entrepreneurship Education Programs Nordic Academy of Management Meeting – August 22‐24, 2011. Stockholm, Sweden.

Lackéus, M., Lundqvist, M. & Williams Middleton, K. 2013. How can Entrepreneurship Bridge Between Traditional and Progressive Education? . ECSB Entrepreneurship Education Conference. Aarhus, Denmark, 29–31 May 2013.

Lackéus, M. & Williams‐Middleton, K. 2011. Venture Creation Programs: entrepreneurial education through real‐life content. Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC) 2011 Syracuse.

Lackéus, M. & Williams Middleton, K. 2013. Venture Creation Programs ‐ Bridging Entrepreneurship Education and Technology Transfer. Education + Training, In review process.

Lakomski, G. & Evers, C. W. 2010. Passionate rationalism: the role of emotion in decision making. Journal of Educational Administration, 48, 438‐450.

Lange, J. E., Marram, E., Jawahar, A. S., Yong, W. & Bygrave, W. 2011. Does an entrepreneurship education have lasting value? A study of careers of 4,000 alumni. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 31, 2.

Lautenschläger, A. & Haase, H. 2011. The myth of entrepreneurship education: seven arguments against teaching business creation at universities. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 14, 147‐161.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Leitch, C. M. & Harrison, R. T. 1999. A process model for entrepreneurship education and development. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 5, 83‐109.

Leont'ev, A. N. 1978. Activity. consciousness. personality.


Page 42

Levin, H. M. 2011. THE UTILITY AND NEED FOR INCORPORATING NON‐COGNITIVE SKILLS INTO LARGE SCALE EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENTS. ETS Invitational Conference on International Large‐Scale Assessment

Levykh, M. G. 2008. The affective establishment and maintenance of Vygotsky's zone of proximal development. Educational Theory, 58.

Lindqvist, E. & Vestman, R. 2011. The labor market returns to cognitive and noncognitive ability: Evidence from the Swedish enlistment. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3, 101‐128.

Lutz, C. & White, G. M. 1986. The anthropology of emotions. Annual Review of anthropology, 15, 405‐436.

Löbler, H. 2006. Learning entrepreneurship from a constructivist perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18, 19‐38.

Mahieu, R. 2006. Agents of change and policies of scale: a policy study of entrepreneurship and enterprise in education. Doctoral thesis, Umeå Universitet.

Man, T. W. Y. 2007. Understanding entrepreneurial learning A competency approach. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 8, 189‐198.

Man, T. W. Y., Lau, T. & Chan, K. 2002. The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises: A conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 123‐142.

Markman, G. D., Baron, R. A. & Balkin, D. B. 2005. Are perseverance and self‐efficacy costless? Assessing entrepreneurs' regretful thinking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 1‐19.

Markowska, M. 2011. Entrepreneurial Competence Development ‐ triggers, processes and consequences. Doctoral Thesis, Jönköping University.

Marsick, V. J. & O’neil, J. 1999. The many faces of action learning. Management Learning, 30, 159‐176.

Martin, B. C., Mcnally, J. J. & Kay, M. J. 2012. Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta‐analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing.

Meyer, A. D., Aten, K., Krause, A. J. & Metzger, M. L. 2011. Creating a university technology commercialisation programme: confronting conflicts between learning, discovery and commercialisation goals. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 13.

Meyers, S. 1999. Service learning in alternative education settings. The Clearing House, 73, 114‐117. Miettinen, R. 2000. The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey's theory of reflective

thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19, 54‐72. Miettinen, R. 2001. Artifact mediation in Dewey and in cultural‐historical activity theory. Mind,

Culture, and Activity, 8, 297‐308. Minniti, M. & Bygrave, W. 2001. A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. ENTREPRENEURSHIP

THEORY and PRACTICE, 25, 5‐16. Mitchelmore, S. & Rowley, J. 2010. Entrepreneurial competencies: a literature review and

development agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16, 92‐111.

Moore, D. R., Cheng, M.‐I. & Dainty, A. R. 2002. Competence, competency and competencies: performance assessment in organisations. Work Study, 51, 314‐319.

Moroz, P. W., Hindle, K. & Anderson, R. 2010. Collaboration with entrepreneurship education programmes: building spinout capacity at universities. International journal of innovation and learning, 7, 245‐273.

Morris, M. H., Pryor, C. G. & Schindehutte, M. 2012. Entrepreneurship as Enterprise: How Events Create Ventures and Ventures Create Entrepreneurs, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Murnieks, C. Y. 2007. Who am I? The quest for an entrepreneurial identity and an investigation of its relationship to entrepreneurial passion and goal‐setting, ProQuest.


Page 43

Murphy, P. J., Liao, J. & Welsch, H. P. 2006. A conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought. Journal of Management History, 12, 12‐35.

Mwasalwiba, E. S. 2010. Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education + Training, 52 20‐47.

Nakkula, M., Pineda, C., Dray, A. & Lutyens, M. 2003. Expanded explorations into the psychology of entrepreneurship: Findings from the 2001‐2002 study of NFTE in two Boston public high‐schools. Harvard University.

Nardi, B. A. 1996. Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human‐computer interaction, 69‐102.

Nelson, A. & Byers, T. 2010. Challenges in university technology transfer and the promising role of entrepreneurship education. Working paper (SSRN ID 1651224). Emerging Scholars Initiatives. Kauffman.

Nicolaou, N. & Shane, S. 2009. Can genetic factors influence the likelihood of engaging in entrepreneurial activity? Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 1‐22.

O'connor, A. 2012. A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. Journal of Business Venturing, In press.

Ollila, S. & Williams‐Middleton, K. 2011. The venture creation approach: integrating entrepreneurial education and incubation at the university. Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management.

Olson, D. R. 2004. The triumph of hope over experience in the search for “what works”: A response to Slavin. Educational researcher, 33, 24‐26.

Osterwalder, A. 2004. The business model ontology: A proposition in a design science approach. Academic Dissertation, Universite de Lausanne, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, 2.

Pekrun, R. 2005. Progress and open problems in educational emotion research. Learning and instruction, 15, 497‐506.

Pepin, M. 2012. Enterprise education: a Deweyan perspective. Education+ Training, 54, 801‐812. Peterman, N. E. & Kennedy, J. 2003. Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of

entrepreneurship. ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE, 28, 129‐144. Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C. T. 2002. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy

of Management Learning & Education, 1, 78‐95. Pittaway, L. 2011. A Framework for Entrepreneurial Learning: A Tribute to Jason Cope. Working

Paper Series. Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership, College of Business Administration, Georgia Southern University.

Pittaway, L. & Cope, J. 2007a. Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. International Small Business Journal 2007; 25; 479, 25.

Pittaway, L. & Cope, J. 2007b. Simulating entrepreneurial learning. Management Learning, 38, 211‐233.

Pittaway, L. & Thorpe, R. 2012. A framework for entrepreneurial learning: A tribute to Jason Cope. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24, 837‐859.

Politis, D. 2005. The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE, 29, 399‐424.

Posner, J., Russell, J. A. & Peterson, B. S. 2005. The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Development and psychopathology, 17, 715‐734.

Postle, D. 1993. Putting the heart back into learning. Using experience for learning, 33–45. Qaa 2012. Enterprise and entrepreneurship education: Guidance for UK higher education providers.

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Rae, D. 2005. Entrepreneurial learning: a narrative‐based conceptual model. Journal of Small

Business and Enterprise Development, 12. Rae, D. & Carswell, M. 2001. Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial learning.

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 8, 150‐158.


Page 44

Rambusch, J. Situated learning and Galperin’s notion of object‐oriented activity. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2006. 1998‐2003.

Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S. & Wright, M. 2011. The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Competencies: A Longitudinal Study of University Spin‐Off Venture Emergence. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1314‐1345.

Read, S., Sarasvathy, S., Dew, N., Wiltbank, R. & Ohlsson, A.‐V. 2011. Effectual enterpreneurship, Taylor & Francis.

Revans, R. 1983. Action learning: Its terms and character. Management Decision, 21, 39‐50. Revans, R. W. 1971. Developing effective managers: a new approach to business education, Praeger

Publishers. Rice, M. P., Fetters, M. L. & Greene, P. G. 2010. 8. University‐based entrepreneurship ecosystems:

key success factors and recommendations. In: Fetters, M. L., Greene, P. G., Rice, M. P. & Butler, J. S. (eds.) The development of university‐based entrepreneurship ecosystems: global practices. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D. & Jiang, L. 2007. University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16.

Rousseau, J.‐J. 1762. Emile ou de l'éducation, chez J. Néaulme [en réalité à Paris]. Russell, J. A. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39,

1161. Ryle, G. 1949. The concept of mind London, UK, Hutchinson. Sánchez, J. C. 2011. University training for entrepreneurial competencies: Its impact on intention of

venture creation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7, 239‐254. Sarasvathy, S. D. 2001. Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic

inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management review, 26, 243‐263. Sarasvathy, S. D. & Dew, N. 2005. Entrepreneurial logics for a technology of foolishness. Scandinavian

Journal of Management, 21, 385‐406. Sarasvathy, S. D. & Venkataraman, S. 2011. Entrepreneurship as method: open questions for an

entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 113‐135. Schein, E. H. 1993. Legitimating clinical research in the study of organizational culture. Journal of

counseling & development, 71, 703‐708. Schutz, P. A. & Pekrun, R. 2007. Emotion in education, Academic Press. Scott, M. G., Rosa, P. & Klandt, H. 1998. Educating entrepreneurs for wealth creation, Avebury. Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. 2007. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research*.

Entrepreneurship. Springer. Shane, S. A. 2003. A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual‐opportunity nexus, Edward

Elgar Pub. Shane, S. A. 2004. Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation, Edward Elgar

Publishing. Slavin, R. E. 2002. Evidence‐based education policies: Transforming educational practice and

research. Educational researcher, 31, 15‐21. Stevenson, H. H. & Jarillo, J. C. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management.

Strategic management journal, 11, 17‐27. Stipek, D. J. 1996. Motivation and instruction. Handbook of educational psychology, 85‐113. Surlemont, B. 2007. 16 Promoting enterprising: a strategic move to get schools’ cooperation in the

promotion of entrepreneurship. In: Fayolle, A. (ed.) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: Contextual perspectives. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Säljö, R. 2007. Lärande, kunskap och kampen mellan traditionalism och progressivism. I kunskapens namn, 10.

Taatila, V. 2010. Pragmatism as a philosophy of education for entrepreneurship. 3rd international FINPIN 2010 conference. Finland.

Tan, S. S. & Ng, C. K. F. 2006. A problem‐based learning approach to entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 48, 416‐428.


Page 45

Taylor, D. W. & Thorpe, R. 2004. Entrepreneurial learning: a process of co‐participation. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11, 203‐211.

Thursby, M. C., Fuller, A. W. & Thursby, J. 2009. An Integrated Approach to Educating Professionals for Careers in Innovation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 389‐405.

Tynjälä, P. 1999. Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International journal of educational research, 31, 357‐442.

Uden, L. 2007. Activity theory for designing mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 1, 81‐102.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge Univ Pr. Venkataraman, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N. & Forster, W. R. 2012. Reflections on the 2010 AMR

decade award: Whither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Academy of Management review, 37, 21‐33.

Whitehead, A. N. 1967. Aims of education, Free Press. Wilson, K. 2008. Entrepreneurship education in Europe. Entrepreneurship and Higher Education. Volkmann, C., Wilson, K. E., Mariotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. & Sepulveda, A. 2009. Educating

the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs ‐ Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P. & Autio, E. 2005. Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24, 335‐350.

Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S. & Lockett, A. 2009. Academic entrepreneurship and business schools. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 560–587.

Vygotsky, L. 1997. The Collected Works of LS Vygotsky: Vol 4. The history of the development of higher mental functions, New York, Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA, Harvard Univ Press.

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods, Sage publications, INC. Yorks, L. & Kasl, E. 2002. Toward a theory and practice for whole‐person learning: Reconceptualizing

experience and the role of affect. Adult Education Quarterly, 52, 176‐192.

Documents

Entrepreneurial competency development in …vcplist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/LIC-kappa-130910.pdfleading to a wide diversity of approaches ... venture as formal part of the