Integrating “education forentrepreneurship” in multiplefaculties in “half-the-time” to

enhance graduateentrepreneurship

Fernando LourencoInstitute for Tourism Studies, Macau, China and Department of Management,Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, UK, and

Tony G. Taylor and David W. TaylorDepartment of Management,

Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, UK

Abstract

Purpose – This paper seeks to highlight the role of entrepreneurship education in encouraging thegrowth of graduate entrepreneurship in the UK to help overcome the over-supply of universitygraduates in a very difficult employment market. This paper aims to discuss the design principle forentrepreneurship education that facilitates graduate entrepreneurship, and the design methodologythat allows multi-faculty collaboration in the provision of entrepreneurship programmes.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper begins with the conceptualisation of designprinciples and frameworks based on current concepts found in the literature, followed bypractitioner-based reflection to shed insights into the process of developing entrepreneurshipeducation in higher education institutions (HEIs).

Findings – The authors have developed the “30/70 methodology” to guide the future design ofentrepreneurship education, and the “80/20 methodology” to support cross-faculty entrepreneurshipprogrammes to serve non-business students. Factors that impede or support academicentrepreneurship and effective integration of entrepreneurship programmes in HEIs are discussed.

Originality/value – This paper shares the authors’ experiences, and their unique design principlesand methodology to support the development of education for entrepreneurship.

Keywords Entrepreneurship education, Education for entrepreneurship, Unemployment,Graduate entrepreneurship, Academic entrepreneurship, Cross-faculty collaboration,Graduate employability, Entrepreneurialism, Education

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionThe financial crisis of 2007-2009 originating in the USA triggered a global recessionaffecting many countries and businesses across the world. Although the UK isshowing signs of recovery, economic growth forecasts have been low and full recoveryis expected to take many years (Lane, 2010). Indeed, according to the National Institutefor Economic and Social Research (2012a, b) the UK economy technically entered adouble-dip recession in the first quarter of 2012, with growth for the year originallyanticipated to be close to zero, with later forecasts indicating a contraction in the

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

503

Journal of Small Business andEnterprise Development

Vol. 20 No. 3, 2013pp. 503-525

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1462-6004

DOI 10.1108/JSBED-04-2013-0052

economy this year and 1 per cent growth in 2013. The government’s steep cuts inpublic spending over the next five years is exacerbating the situation (Lane, 2010),resulting in massive cuts in public sector jobs and rises in unemployment. The Officefor Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasted 490,000 job losses by 2015 and 610,000 by2016 (BBC, 2010a). A controversial report published by the Chartered Institute ofPersonnel and Development (CIPD) correctly predicted that the impact of thegovernment’s spending cuts and the rise in VAT to 20 per cent in January 2011 wouldresult in a loss of many public sector jobs and private sector jobs (BBC, 2010b;Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2010). This news added furtheruncertainty to individuals and businesses across the UK.

In August 2012, there was a small improvement in the unemployment level in theUK, but there were still 2.53 million out of work (Office for National Statistics, 2012).Whilst there is expected to be a modest rise of 4.6 per cent in graduate recruitment inthe UK in 2012 (High Fliers Research, 2012), there will still be a significant shortfall ofgraduate jobs. These statistics cast a shadow over university students entering thejobs market (762,540 graduates in 2010/2011; 2.5 million engaging in higher education)(Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2012). Entrepreneurship education is animportant intervention to tackle the recent economic downturn and reduce the level ofunemployment (Matlay, 2011). Higher education institutions (HEIs) play an importantrole in helping students make the transition to being successful entrepreneurs whocreate their own jobs and employment opportunities for others (Hannon, 2007;Herrmann et al., 2008; Gibb et al., 2009; Volkmann et al., 2009; Gibb, 2010).

Two areas will be discussed in this paper:

(1) design principles for entrepreneurship education to facilitate graduateentrepreneurship; and

(2) design methodology that allows multi-faculty collaboration in the provision ofentrepreneurship programmes.

In order to discuss these two areas, this paper will highlight a series of threeentrepreneurship units developed by a UK higher education institution to facilitategraduate entrepreneurship and develop graduates with enterprising skills, and to aidcollaboration between different faculties in order to promote entrepreneurshipprogrammes to non-business students.

Following on from the introduction, the issue of unemployment is further exploredand the need to promote entrepreneurship education to enhance graduateentrepreneurship is discussed. Then the design and methodology adopted for ourentrepreneurship education unit and multi-faculty collaboration are described. This isfollowed by a discussion of the process of integrating such units into the businessschool and non-business faculties. Our experiences of, and strategies for,commercialisation are reviewed in light of the academic entrepreneurship literature.We conclude by highlighting a number of best practices to aid educators who areinterested in adopting similar strategies to promote graduate entrepreneurship.

The graduates, unemployment and entrepreneurship educationIn 1965, there were approximately 30,000 graduates entering the UK labour market(Nabi et al., 2006). In 2010/2011 the number of graduates (undergraduate andpost-graduate) reached 762,540 in the UK (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2012).

JSBED20,3

504

This growth is reflected in recent reports that state that the number of individualsengaging in higher education grew to 2.5 million in 2011-2012 (Higher EducationStatistics Agency, 2012). This year the number of University applications reduced by 8per cent but this follows on from a particularly strong rise of 12 per cent the previousyear (UCAS, 2012). This at a time when the overall jobs market for graduates is stillvery uncertain (Nabi et al., 2006; Matlay and Carey, 2007) leaving graduates facingdifficult times (Lexmond and Bradley, 2010; Matlay, 2011).

In 2012, the worldwide recession increased global unemployment to over 200million, 2.53 million in the UK (International Labour Organization, 2012; Office forNational Statistics, 2012). There has been a small rise of 6.4 per cent in graduate jobs inthe UK, following falls of 17.8 per cent and 6.7 per cent in the previous two years.However, the jobs market for graduates is still very competitive with new graduatesentering the jobs market and one in three job applicants for graduate positions comingfrom the previous year’s graduate cohort (High Fliers Research, 2012). A study of 502SMEs found that recruitment of graduates was low in the last 12 months and theirintention to recruit was low for the next 12 months (Kewin et al., 2010). A reportpublished in 2007 indicated that almost a quarter of graduates were still struggling toget full-time employment three and a half years after their graduation (HigherEducation Statistics Agency, 2007). The picture is even gloomier as further rises inunemployment over the next two years are forecast (Chartered Institute of Personneland Development, 2010). Recovery of the private sector will be offset by the loss of600,000 public sector jobs over the next five years (Chartered Institute of Personnel andDevelopment, 2010). As noted in Lexmond and Bradley (2010, p. 18), “the combinationof a recessionary graduate job market, increasing numbers entering higher educationand a potential oversupply of graduates, top-up fees and spiralling student debt, hasled to recent graduates being described as generation crunch”.

Traditionally, higher education institutions (HEIs) play the role of educating andpreparing individuals to become employees (Fletcher, 1999; Kirby, 2004; Nurmi andPaasio, 2007). Self-employment or entrepreneurship has not been traditionally viewedas the career choice for graduates (Hartshorn and Hannon, 2005). However, thistraditional role needs to be reformed because the world is changing (Kirby, 2004). In thecurrent economic climate with unemployment on the increase, graduateentrepreneurship is ever more important (Draycott and Rae, 2011; Matlay, 2011).HEIs play an important role in the development of the necessary behaviours and skillsthat would enable graduates to create their own job (business start-up) or become aneffective job seeker (Lewis, 2005).

The Kauffman Foundation noted that new business start-up is crucial to therenewal and restructuring on the economy (National Council for GraduateEntrepreneurship, 2009a). One of their studies indicated that over half of America’sFortune 500 companies were formed during an economic downturn. This studyprovides a “silver lining to the dark cloud that is currently hanging over the economyand shows that new businesses could lift [. . .] out of a recession” (National Council forGraduate Entrepreneurship, 2009a). During the 2001-2002 recession in the UK therewas an increase in business start-ups (National Council for GraduateEntrepreneurship, 2009a). The people that are likely to take the risk of starting theirown business are not the employed, but rather it is the unemployed (National Council

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

505

for Graduate Entrepreneurship, 2009a). This emphasises the importance of promotingand supporting entrepreneurship to tackle unemployment in the UK (Rae, 2010).

Since the 1970s, entrepreneurship education has become a critical intervention toenhance enterprise culture and support entrepreneurship (Sexton and Bowman, 1984).This is in part down to an increased interest among graduates about entrepreneurialcareers (Curran and Blackburn, 1989; Robertson et al., 2004; Nabi et al., 2006), and anincreased emphasis in government for graduate entrepreneurship, has led toentrepreneurship climbing up the political agenda (Matlay, 2006; Draycott and Rae,2011; Matlay, 2011). As a consequence, HEIs are beginning to respond to this growinginterest in entrepreneurship (Matlay, 2010).

The literature highlights the importance of promoting entrepreneurial skills amonggraduates (Gibb et al., 2009; Draycott and Rae, 2011; Lourenco and Jayawarna, 2011).Gibb (1993, 2002) argued that entrepreneurs need more than business start-up,management skills and core business knowledge. They need a set of enterprising skillsto support their entrepreneurial venture, and deal with the fast-changing businessenvironment. As highlighted in recent reports, the development of an entrepreneurialmindset and/or enterprising skills is also on the agenda for developing graduates inorder to enhance their employability (Herrmann et al., 2008; Gibb et al., 2009; Volkmannet al., 2009; Gibb, 2010). It is argued that employers are looking for graduates equippedwith skills that will enable them to act in enterprising ways so they can deal effectivelywith a difficult business environment, and a personal life that is increasingly full ofuncertainties and complexities (Gibb et al., 2009). Thus, entrepreneurship educationshould be an important element in the new curriculum for HEIs (Matlay, 2006; Draycottand Rae, 2011; Matlay, 2011). Entrepreneurship education is now being viewed as animportant contributor to facilitate graduates moving into self-employment as well asenhancing their employability to work within a volatile, complex and uncertainbusiness environment.

Hannon’s (2007) study indicated that only 7 per cent of the overall studentpopulation in the UK were engaged in an enterprise or entrepreneurship programme,by 2010 this figure had grown to 16 per cent (National Council for GraduateEntrepreneurship, 2010). Primarily provision has been delivered by business schools(McKeown et al., 2006; Hannon, 2007; Matlay and Carey, 2007; National Council forGraduate Entrepreneurship, 2010). However, if HEIs are seeking to increase the overalllevel of students engaged in enterprise then bringing other faculties on board is anecessity (Hartshorn and Hannon, 2005). Non-business students represent around 86per cent of the overall student population in the UK (Higher Education StatisticsAgency, 2011). This indicates opportunities for collaborative development betweenfaculties. As noted in Gibb et al. (2009), entrepreneurship is an intra-disciplinaryconcept intrinsic to the development of all students. However, it has been argued thatbusiness schools provide one-size-fits-all education products that are not relevant to allstudents across different disciplines (Gibb, 2002; Collins et al., 2004). Therefore, thisindicates a critical issue that may affect effective collaboration between faculties.

The design of the Ideas, Creativity and Entrepreneurship units (ICE)At our higher education institution, we acknowledge the need to promote graduateentrepreneurship and develop enterprising individuals (Lourenco and Jayawarna,2011). Entrepreneurship units have been developed to enable our students to identify

JSBED20,3

506

opportunities around which they can potentially create their own job whilst at the sametime enhancing their employability by being more enterprising (Draycott and Rae,2011; Matlay, 2011). In 2007, we began our development of a three-year series of unitsfor entrepreneurship called Ideas, Creativity and Entrepreneurship (ICE). These unitsaim to promote graduate entrepreneurship and improve graduate employability.

The literature noted that entrepreneurship education can be categorised into twoforms:

(1) education about entrepreneurship; and

(2) education for entrepreneurship.

Education about entrepreneurship is descriptive and it only provides students with theknowledge about entrepreneurship. This type of education has been criticised for its useof traditional pedagogical approaches that over-emphasise theory and treat functionalknowledge as an “end” rather than a “means”, such an approach restrains thedevelopment of entrepreneurial skills, capabilities and attributes (Gibb, 1987a, 1993,2010). Education for entrepreneurship is to support and facilitate students to becomeentrepreneurial and/or to become an entrepreneur (Laukkanen, 2000). This form ofeducation adopts a more constructive learning pedagogy whereby learning isconstructed by learners through the process of “doing” (Gibb, 1987a, 1993; Smith et al.,2006; Gibb, 2010). In the UK, Hannon’s (2007) review of entrepreneurship educationindicated that there is an emphasis on education about entrepreneurship (theoretical andcontent driven courses), moderate provision of enterprise education (helping individualsto become entrepreneurial), and there is a lack of education for entrepreneurship (helpingindividuals to become entrepreneurs). To promote graduate entrepreneurship it isparticularly important to develop education for entrepreneurship, allowing students toexperience different stages within the entrepreneurship process (Gibb, 1987a; Plaschkaand Welsch, 1990), and develop enterprising attributes, skills and behaviours relevant toeach stage (Gibb, 1987a, b, 1993; Gibb et al., 2009). Therefore, education forentrepreneurship is the preferred approach to support graduate entrepreneurship and topromote the development of enterprising individuals.

The studies of Co and Mitchell (2006) and Lourenco and Jones (2006) noted differenttypes of pedagogical methods used in entrepreneurship education. However, Lourencoand Jones (2006) argue that it is not the choice between traditional and enterprisingapproaches which is important in entrepreneurship education. Rather, what matters ishow we integrate the functionalities offered by both approaches. It is important to useinstructive approaches (traditional methods) to introduce concepts and tools tostudents, use constructive approaches (enterprising methods) to allow students to learnby doing and use stimulants such as guest speakers and case studies, so linkinglearning content to real world situations. The use of multiple pedagogical approachesis a key design principle to guide the development of entrepreneurship education.

The ICE units adopt a constructivist methodology to teaching and are guided by theuse of multiple pedagogical approaches as guiding design principles. We havedeveloped a 30/70 session structure methodology (two-hour session). This structureallocates 30 per cent of each training session for tutors to deliver training material –introducing concepts and tools, delivering case studies to create learning scenarios,explaining assignments, and understanding in-class activities. The remaining 70 percent is designed to allow students to learn by doing through in-class activities. In order

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

507

to support the 30/70 session structure design, three major pedagogical elements areused (Table I). As depicted in Figure 1, each pedagogical approach is used incombination to allow students to learn core concepts that are linked to real-worldscenarios and to learn by doing through activities and assessments. This methodologyencourages students’ engagement in the process of learning.

Recent development of entrepreneurship theories has focused on opportunity andcognitive aspects (Gregoire et al., 2006). The field of entrepreneurship is defined as “thescholarly examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to createfuture goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited” (Shane andVenkataraman, 2000, p. 218). Ardichvili et al. (2003) argued similarly but replaced theterm “opportunity discovery” with “opportunity recognition”. They argue that anopportunity is recognised via three distinct processes:

(1) sensing or perceiving market needs and/or underemployed resources (perception);

(2) recognising or discovering a “fit” between particular market needs andspecified resources (discovery); and

(3) creating a new “fit” between heretofore separate needs and resources in theform of a business concept (creation) (Ardichvili et al., 2003, pp. 109-10).

These three processes require an individual to actively shape their initial ideas intobusiness concepts and business models. Within this development process,opportunities are evaluated and screened through a feasibility analysis to afull-blown business plan. In this process, opportunities will pass through a series ofscreening “gates” where ideas are assessed, revised or aborted. Subsequently, thedevelopment process may lead to the formation of business enterprise to exploitopportunity. Opportunity development is crucial as the recognition of opportunity initself cannot become a business (Ardichvili et al., 2003).

In essence, the literature indicates two building blocks to influence the developmentof our conceptual framework:

(1) stages of entrepreneurial opportunity (recognition, evaluation, formation andexploitation); and

(2) development of enterprising behaviours, skills and attributes in relation to eachstage within the entrepreneurial process.

Pedagogy Mode of learning

Mini-lecture: introduction of theory, tool, concept or method Instructed to learnersCase, scenario or a story Stimulus: creating learning scenarioMini-activity Constructed: learn by doing

Table I.Pedagogy and learningmode

Figure 1.Session format (30 per centinput of academic staffsand entrepreneurs and 70per cent of the time is forstudents to practise andlearn by doing)

JSBED20,3

508

The model depicted in Figure 2 reflects these two building blocks.This education for entrepreneurship framework indicates that the entrepreneurial

process has four stages. The initial stage relates to the identification, recognition andcreation of ideas and opportunities. The second stage relates to selection, validationand evaluation of opportunities. The third stage relates to development, finalisationand operationalisation of opportunities. The final stage relates to the exploitation ofopportunities and post start-up aspects. The model depicted in Figure 2 incorporatesthe idea that throughout the entrepreneurial process, it is particularly important todevelop enterprising behaviours, attributes and skills according to each stage withinthe process (from awareness building to post-start-up phase). As a whole, the initialstage of the entrepreneurial process goes through a divergent phase to develop a widevariety of ideas and subsequently ideas are shaped into business concepts, businessmodels, business plans and business start-ups via the opportunity developmentprocess (Ardichvili et al., 2003). This can be linked to the divergence and convergenceprocess of innovation model as described in Stamm (2003).

In 2007, the model described above, provided a framework to guide the design of athree-year series of units called Ideas, Creativity and Entrepreneurship (ICE) aiming to:

. develop enterprising behaviours, attributes and skills;

. enhance career perspective and choices;

. facilitate the development of a business ideas portfolio;

. guide and facilitate students to go through the whole entrepreneurial process;and

. provide students with a playful and constructive environment where tools can beapplied, and information and projects introduced (Table II).

ICE in year 1 is designed to build an awareness of entrepreneurial career paths, supportthe opportunity recognition process, and develop enterprising behaviours, attributesand skills, for example creative thinking, communication, problem solving, decisiontaking, autonomous, opportunity seeking and self-confident. Tools and techniques areintroduced to students through workshops to allow them to learn by doing to supportthe process of recognising opportunities and opportunity development.

In year 2 ICE is designed to support the process of evaluation and operationalisationof opportunities. Additionally, it aims to develop skills such as team working,

Figure 2.Framework for Ideas,

Creativity andEntrepreneurship unit

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

509

negotiations, social networking, leadership, communication, critical thinking andassessment, problem solving, planning, decision taking, autonomous, commitment tomake things happen, achievement orientation, empathy and self-confidence. As withICE on year 1, tools and techniques are introduced to students through workshops toallow them to learn by doing to support the process of screening and validatingbusiness opportunities (feasibility analysis), and developing a business plan.Techniques are integrated into every session to encourage creativity (to support thedivergence process) and logical thinking (to support the convergence process), and toallow a gradual development of enterprising behaviours (Lourenco and Jayawarna,2011).

ICE in year 3 is designed to facilitate the business formation and opportunityexploitation process. Students are required to operationalise their business opportunityby forming and running their business enterprise for six months. This aims to allowstudents to experience the process of exploiting business opportunity andunderstanding the life-world of the entrepreneur. In addition, this aims to developenterprising behaviours, attributes and skills that can only be achieved via startingand running a real business venture, for example being flexible in responding tochallenges, coping with and enjoying uncertainty, tolerance to risk, taking risk actionsin uncertain environments, and being versatile and dynamic. During this period,students are invited to work in our university’s business incubator, called Innospace.Therefore, students are treated as nascent entrepreneurs whom will be working aroundlike-minded individuals who are going through a similar process.

Pittaway et al. (2009) undertook a systematic review of the entrepreneurshipliterature and identified that assessment of practice was a gap in the field. These andother authors go on to argue that it is important be innovative in the assessment ofpractice for entrepreneurship education, due to the fact that many learning outcomes

Level Pedagogies

Year 1 Creativity activities; problem-based activities; scenarios activities; role-playactivities; self-assessment tools; video case studies; animations, stories,analogies, metaphors and clips from the BBC’s “Dragon’s Den” to reflecttheories; presentations; preparation and presentation of portfolio

Year 2 Same as Year 1 plus feasibility analysis and writing business plan

Year 3 Registering and working at the incubation centre with real nascententrepreneurs; preparing a functional business plan; business launch event;“Dragon’s Den”-style business pitch (with real business dragons); businessstart-up and management; produce a final business plan and report; onlinereflective learning log (covering multiple learning aspects); businessmentors to facilitate the process

Non-curricular activities For example: student enterprise society, Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE)society, working with Innospace business incubator, working with the ouruniversity’s Enterprise Champion, National Council for GraduateEntrepreneurs (NCGE), Shell Livewire, Shell Technology EnterpriseProgramme, Make your Mark initiatives, Young Enterprise, Innoflux,Flux500, Enterprise Days in schools, Innospace Business PlanningCompetition, Xing Business Game, etc.

Table II.Pedagogies and activities

JSBED20,3

510

relate to changing values, attitudes, skills, behaviour, motivation and competencies(Pittaway et al., 2009; Draycott and Rae, 2011). Therefore, traditional methods such asessays, exams and reports “do not have much of a role when the learning outcomes arebehavioural or attitudinal” (Pittaway et al., 2009, p. 79). As the emphasis of oureducation for entrepreneurship unit is on the actions of students and development ofskills, we have followed the cognitive theory of learning and constructivist learningtheory to develop our assessment strategies.

According to the cognitive theories, learning is a dynamic, active, constructive andgoal-orientated process (Wittrock, 1978; Shuell, 1981, 1986; Wittrock, 1986; Smith et al.,2006). Learning is enhanced as students engage in the construction of knowledge by“acquiring, generating, analysing, manipulating and structuring information” (Alavi,1994, p. 161). Learners are actively involved in reorganising and constructing existingand new knowledge during the learning process (Shuell, 1986; Alavi et al., 2002). Thereare three major elements in this cognitive process:

(1) our existing knowledge set;

(2) the process of acquiring new information and the interplay between existingknowledge; and

(3) new information to form new knowledge (Kolb, 1984).

Learning relates to the acquisition of knowledge, change in mental models, andknowledge structures (Greeno, 1974). Learning occurs when expectations, perceptions,beliefs or attitudes change as influenced by their new mental models and knowledgestructures (Harlow, 1972; Shuell, 1981). Therefore, the process of learning can only beactivated when students engage in process of knowledge construction.

In order to assess students, our aim is to ensure that students engage in the processof doing. This assumes that by doing, students will:

(1) cognitively acquire, generate, analyse, manipulate and structure information;

(2) change their mental models and knowledge structures; and

(3) potentially influence their expectations, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes orbehaviours (Kolb, 1984).

Therefore, we have adopted assessment strategies to monitor the process of doingthrough the use of assignments (developing posters, presentations, reports andbusiness plan) and portfolio (presentation of outcomes derived from the in-classactivities and assignments). These approaches allow us to assess engagement andencourage action learning.

In order to motivate students and build credibility in our delivery, we have trained arange of entrepreneurs and academic tutors to support the delivery of the ICE units.Lourenco and Jones’s (2006) study highlighted the importance of using enthusiasticentrepreneurs (i.e. pracademics) to deliver entrepreneurship education in order tomotivate students, bring relevance to the learning content and offer real-world adviceto students. This strategy is another key design principle for the development ofeducation for entrepreneurship.

In summary, the ICE units (which attract around 700 students each year) haveconsistently received positive student satisfaction ratings, scoring above 4.0 each yearat all levels (where 5 ¼ excellent). The ICE units have been accredited by the Chartered

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

511

Management Institute professional certification in business start-up and we arecurrently in talks with other professional qualification bodies to developing bespokeprofessional accreditations linked to each of our ICE units. Students can benefit fromobtaining professional qualifications related to entrepreneurship, small businessmanagement and development of enterprising skills to improve their employability.The following section discusses our methodology for multi-faculty collaboration onpromoting graduate entrepreneurship.

Multi-faculty integration and collaborationGraduate entrepreneurship is becoming ever more important in a stagnating jobsmarket, where unemployment and graduate numbers are both high. HEIs need tofocus on imbuing entrepreneurial potential and increasing graduate employability(Kirby, 2004; Matlay, 2011). This resulted in 2004 in the establishment of theNational Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (now the National Centre forEntrepreneurship in Education) in the UK to support all aspects of student andgraduate entrepreneurship. The government acknowledges the important role ofHEIs to “actively engage in entrepreneurship education, knowledge transfer andbusiness support to boost their activities in order to tackle the current economiccrisis” (National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, 2009b). Subsequently, anumber of funds, such as the Economic Challenge Investment Fund have been setupto boost the efforts of HEIs to support entrepreneurship (National Council forGraduate Entrepreneurship, 2010). However, in England there were only 7 per centof the overall student population engaged in enterprise or entrepreneurshipprogrammes (Hannon, 2007) and this figure grew to 16 per cent in a recent report(National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, 2010). The business school is themain faculty that provides the ‘in-curricula’ activities (63.5 per cent), followed by thefaculty of engineering (8.81 per cent) and the art and design faculty (8.47 per cent)(Hannon, 2007) and this is expected to continue (National Council for GraduateEntrepreneurship, 2010). Similarly, Matlay and Carey’s (2007) investigation of 40 UKHEIs indicated that the business school dominated the provision of enterprise andentrepreneurship training, where only three courses were offered outside thebusiness school (computing and engineering faculties). In the same way, McKeownet al.’s (2006) survey found that 86 HEIs provided some form of entrepreneurship orenterprise programme out of the 102 HEIs. Out of these 86 HEIs, the businessschool is the dominant faculty in the provision of enterprise and entrepreneurshipprogrammes. Interestingly, training programmes run by the science, technology, artand design, or engineering faculties created more start-ups than business faculties.McKeown et al. (2006, p. 610) argue that:

[. . .] the Business School may not be the best place for enterprise education aimed at businesscreation. Here business schools may benefit from better links with these other faculties orthey may need to develop practical awareness of product development techniques andprocesses if they are to offer effective support for both service and product-based start-upbusinesses.

If HEIs seek to increase the overall number of students engaging in enterprise orentrepreneurship activities, then non-business faculties need to engage in enterpriseand entrepreneurship education. As a whole, non-business students represent around86 per cent of the overall student population in the UK (Higher Education Statistics

JSBED20,3

512

Agency, 2011). The literature emphasises the importance of interdisciplinary projectsbetween business and non-business faculties in designing programmes and promotingentrepreneurship (Bechard and Gregoire, 2005; Hartshorn and Hannon, 2005; Jones,2010). It is apparent that collaborative work between the business school and otherfaculties can be beneficial. This can increase the overall level of enterprise activitiesamong the student population.

A recent report noted the importance of providing entrepreneurial skills such ascommercialisation of ideas to those involved in the creative industry (7.3 per cent of theUK economy) (Department for Culture, Media & Sport, 2007). As noted in the report,these entrepreneurial skills are crucial to the economy because the creative industry inthe UK (e.g. advertising, fashion, music, publishing, video games, design, etc.) is one ofthe fastest growing sectors and creates more employment in London than the financialservices. Hence, it is important to develop inter-disciplinary entrepreneurshipprogrammes to enhance the entrepreneurial prospects of students from non-businessfaculties such as the creative disciplines.

Hartshorn and Hannon (2005) and Hannon (2007, p. 207) noted that trainingprogrammes for non-business subjects may need to adopt, develop, test approachesand models “based upon different language and terminology, different aspirations andgoals, different value and belief systems”. This opens a new scope for the developmentof entrepreneurship and enterprise education. Nevertheless, as noted in the literature,business schools tend to offer off-the-shelf products that do not suit the overall studentpopulation (Gibb, 2002; Collins et al., 2004). In order to promote cross-facultyentrepreneurship education, it is important to develop programmes that are relevant tospecific subjects. This leads to the question of how to design relevant entrepreneurshipeducation that suits non-business faculties. The following section describes our designmethodology and strategies for collaboration with non-business faculties to promoteentrepreneurship education.

The 80/20 methodologyAs highlighted in the literature, cross-faculty collaboration is necessary if we aim toincrease the level of graduate entrepreneurship and develop enterprising individuals.However, there are challenges faced by the business school because developing uniqueand relevant programmes will require substantial amount of resources, time andcollaboration between faculty members from different faculties (Gibb, 2011). In order totackle this issue, we have developed a design methodology that allows thedevelopment of subject-specific programmes for entrepreneurship that requireeffective and efficient usage of time and resources: the 80/20 methodology.

We propose that the business school offers a standardised package representing 80per cent of the overall training material to other faculties. This includes contentrelating to key aspects of entrepreneurship that is transferable to different subjects –for example the process of business start-up, concept of entrepreneurship, opportunityidentification, creativity and innovation, marketing, business planning, small businessmanagement, business pitching and research methods. Additionally, this includestraining material such as guidelines, activity templates, PowerPoint slides, assessmentand assignment templates. The remaining 20 per cent of the training material is leftopen for non-business faculty members to prepare and develop in order to turn theoverall package subject specific (Table III).

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

513

The business school is responsible for trainers’ training to support non-businessfaculty members to learn how to use the standardised material (80 per cent) and learnhow to design the remaining training material (20 per cent). This includes:

(1) preparing case studies, videos, guest speakers and/or field trips; and

(2) amending the guidelines, training activities, PowerPoint slides, and assessmentand assignment briefs to suit different subjects (Table III).

Figure 3 depicts an example of a typical training session and format.The 80/20 design methodology is an approach that exploits the benefit of

standardisation of training material to reduce the cost and time for development andcollaboration. This methodology provides a twist that allows non-business facultymembers to have the flexibility to mould the material to suit their specific subject andtarget group. This methodology aims to reduce the cost and time of development andprovide ease of integration of entrepreneurship education into non-business facultiesthat suits different disciplines and subjects.

This year, 12 partner colleges have integrated a new ICE unit (ICE-Cycle), whichcombines ICE 1 and ICE 2, into their curriculum. Short versions of ICE have beendelivered to business faculties in Paris (France), Delhi (India), Macao (China), andVilnius (Lithuania), in a leading art and design university in London (UK), and anumber of HEIs in the UK. The success of ICE has led to proposals to integrate ICE intoother faculties. ICE units have already been designed and approved for programmeswithin the faculty of food and tourism (20/80 ICE). The development of this ICE unitand our 80/20 design methodology contributed to the authors achieving the covetedUK National Enterprise Educator Awards in 2009.

Example of pedagogy Type of design Designed by

Mini-lecture: introduction of theory,tool, concept or method

Standardised material The business school

Case, scenario or a story Flexible material Non-business school

Activity Standardised format withchangeable content/context

Business/non-business

Assignment Standardised format withchangeable content/context

Business/non-business

Assessment Standardised format withchangeable content/context

Business/non-businessTable III.Pedagogy, type of designand faculties

Figure 3.Session format(standardised, flexible andsemi-flexible material)

JSBED20,3

514

The integration process and the politicsIn July 2003, our institution published a strategic plan for the period 2003 to 2010. Inthis plan, enterprise activity was seen as a key element. The enterprise agenda wasfurther reinforced with the arrival of a new Vice Chancellor, who put forward a newInstitutional Strategic Plan 2007-2020 (The 2020 Vision). The 2020 Vision hasspecifically identified a range of university strategic goals for Academic Enterprise,strongly related to entrepreneurship education. These are:

. to ensure that all students are exposed to enterprise and to develop theirentrepreneurial skills accordingly; and

. to ensure that teaching, learning and staff development are enriched throughenterprise activities.

The environment for curriculum change in the area of entrepreneurship andentrepreneurial skills development was created, and presented an opportunity to beexploited. Therefore, we formed a small team to initiate a project that led to the creationof the three-year series of ICE units. There are three major roles in this team:

(1) research and development;

(2) internal affairs (politics, procedures, and regulations); and

(3) sales, marketing and operations.

This next section will highlight the challenges related to integrating the ICE unit in theuniversity curriculum (i.e. internal affairs).

Our university procedures ensure on a periodic basis, usually a maximum of fiveyears, that the design, academic standards and quality of learning opportunities of itsprogrammes remain appropriate. Throughout the process, reference is made to theuniversity regulations and policies, university’s strategic objectives as laid out in theInstitutional Strategic Plan, any national benchmarks and, if appropriate, professionalemployment demands. The programme review provided opportunities for exploitationin relation to curriculum and programme change. The process is rigorous and has twostages requiring strategic review and academic scrutiny. The review process, ifmanaged effectively, can be seen as an opportunity for significant change. Theacademic scrutiny requires programme teams to engage in a number of consultations,i.e. academic consultation, resource consultation, student consultation andcollaborative partner consultation. Finally, once a programme and/or unit isapproved, then there is an option called programme modification that allows minoror major modifications to be proposed in relation to the original programme or unit.This creates flexibility in the system that can be exploited by motivated teams ofacademics.

Tables IV and V show the impact of programme review and modifications onprogrammes at the Business School over a ten year-period. Initially, there was a unitcalled Enterprising Management that followed a standardised business strategyapproach with a very traditional teaching style based on knowledge transfer. This unitwas radically changed to respond to the 2003-2010 university strategic plans that havean enterprise agenda. Subsequent to the arrival of a new Vice-Chancellor at ouruniversity, a new strategic plan was developed for 2007-2020. This continued to have astrong influence on the enterprise agenda, in part leading to the re-development of the

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

515

Enterprising Management unit into what is now known as ICE. The first ICE unit wasinitially accepted in the 2007 Programme Review and it was expanded through theprocess of Programme Modification to introduce the three-year series of units, amodified unit for our foundation colleges, and the 80/20 scheme for non-businessfaculties.

While promoting and integrating entrepreneurship education in the curriculum isemphasised in the literature, issues that may restrict the process are highlighted.For example: there may be a lack of resources and/or an overload on the universitysystem (Sexton and Bowman, 1984; Hills, 1988); bureaucracy and political infighting(McMullan and Long, 1987); a lack of flexibility in the use of resources andhierarchical departmental structures in schools and universities (Gibb, 1993); and/orrestricted space for new courses and new ways of teaching (Smith et al., 2006). Thishighlights the complication of implementing new initiatives and not to mentionenterprising approaches to support entrepreneurship education in HEIs (Herrmannet al., 2008; Gibb et al., 2009; Volkmann et al., 2009; Gibb, 2010; Draycott and Rae,2011). Many of these issues have affected the flow of our development and theintegration process. Nonetheless, many hurdles were passed with ease because ourdevelopment was in line with the overall strategic plan of the university, and thetiming coincided with the programme review in 2007 allowing us to integrate andexpand ICE at a faster pace. Timing and alignment to the strategic plan bothplayed a crucial role in our project.

The quick expansion of the ICE unit attracted criticism, “non-believers”, andopposition to our approach and pedagogy. In order to deal with the internal politics andbuild a credible foundation for ICE within our institution, we used positive feedbackfrom external sources and theoretical justifications from the literature. For example,positive student and external examiner feedback/evaluation helped to overcome manyobjections and doubts about our pedagogy. Our design methodology was recognised in2009 by winning the National Enterprise Educator Awards (UK) which was judged bywell-known entrepreneurship educators in the field. This helped to develop a positiveperception towards ICE in the university and thus credibility was created. Theexpansion and integration of ICE into external HEIs and colleges also indicated itsrelevance and value to external partners. Finally, we helped create a clearerunderstanding for management when we presented documents containing thetheoretical underpinning for our design principles and methodology.

Programme review Programme modifications

Strategic plan 2003-2010New Strategic Plan 2007-2020

Year 2007 2008 2009

Year 1 ICEa ICE 1 ICE 80/20 schemeYear 2 ICEa ICE 1

ICE 2Year 3 ICE 2

ICE 3

Notes: The ICE 80/20 scheme offers the entrepreneurship unit to non-business faculties; aICE Initialunit that combines aspects of ICE 1 and ICE 2

Table IV.Programme review,2000-2009

JSBED20,3

516

2000

to20

0320

04to

2006

2007

top

rese

nt

Yea

rP

rog

ram

me

un

itP

edag

ogy

Pro

gra

mm

eu

nit

Ped

agog

yP

rog

ram

me

un

itP

edag

ogy

Yea

r3

En

terp

risi

ng

man

agem

ent

For

Bu

sin

ess

En

terp

rise

deg

ree

only

Tra

dit

ion

alk

now

led

ge

tran

sfer

En

terp

risi

ng

man

agem

ent

For

the

wh

ole

sch

ool

Pra

ctic

alfo

cus

onb

usi

nes

sst

art-

up

En

terp

risi

ng

man

agem

ent

For

the

wh

ole

sch

ool

Pra

ctic

alfo

cus

onb

usi

nes

sst

art-

up

and

Beh

avio

ur

and

trai

tsd

evel

opm

ent

Table V.Initial Education for

Entrepreneurship unit

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

517

HEIs reform and academic entrepreneurshipHannon (2007) noted that there is uncertainty in government funding and subsidies toHEIs. This point is justified by the recent shake up of the higher education system asproposed in the Browne Review (BBC, 2010c; Browne, 2010). In brief, the BrowneReview proposes a number of strategies to reform higher education funding system. Atits core, funding and subsidies to HEIs will be removed and reserved for prioritysubjects and public investment to be targeted only at clinical medicine, nursing,science, technology and modern languages. This proposes a free market model to thehigher education sector. HEIs are therefore allowed to adjust the tuition fees to coverthe loss of income through government subsidies. Browne’s (2010) model will create a79 per cent cut in teaching grant (£3.2bn) and a further £1bn cut for research is alsoproposed (Richardson, 2010). The Liberal-Conservative coalition government has ledthese proposed changes, which have already been passed by Parliament and will beinitiated in 2012. As a consequence, the need to find alternative income streams tofinance daily operations and research activities are becoming ever more important.Academic entrepreneurship is therefore a strategy for HEIs to promote in order todevelop alternative income streams such as the commercialisation of the university’sresearch discoveries (Wood, 2009). As noted in Patzelt and Shepherd (2009), manycountries and regions have introduced interventions to support academicentrepreneurship as it is an important driver of economic growth and wealth creation.

As noted in the previous section, the Institutional Strategic Plan (The 2020 Vision)set for our institution has specifically identified a range of university strategies foracademic enterprise. Two of which are strongly related to promoting academicentrepreneurial activities:

(1) to reduce dependency on income from funding council grants by enhancingthird stream activities, and in particular exploiting intellectual property; and

(2) to invest further in and develop the administrative infrastructure to supportentrepreneurial activities.

For this reason, this has created another window of opportunity for ICEcommercialisation in order to create an alternative income stream for the university.

In general, we recognise the need to promote graduate entrepreneurs and the need todevelop enterprising individuals. In response to this market demand, we havedeveloped three types of products/services aiming to generate alternative income forthe institution:

(1) a full ICE training package (licensed products);

(2) the 80/20 package; and

(3) a full training design and facilitation service.

Our guiding principle is to “start small but think big” with regard to ourcommercialisation strategy and targets. To date, our efforts have led to thedevelopment of small-scale income streams. The surpluses were reinvested into theICE project to support our exposure in the overseas education market and developfurther products/services. Further pilot schemes are being negotiated in the USA, anumber of African countries, Estonia, the Middle East, Singapore and China.

JSBED20,3

518

In summary, the timing and alignment to the university-wide strategic plan werecrucial factors that supported the success of our project. Another critical factor waseffective team-working. Team roles and responsibilities were devised for each memberat the start of the ICE project (implicitly and explicitly). In brief, each team memberwas responsible to work on areas that they are familiar with and therefore synergy andeffectiveness was created:

. author 1 – research and development;

. author 2 – internal affairs and strategies; and

. author 3 – marketing, sales and operations.

This small team, in part, acted like a business unit within a larger organisation.

ConclusionThis paper argues in response to the current economic downturn and unemploymentissues that graduate entrepreneurship is an important intervention. HEIs play animportant role in helping students make the transition to being successful entrepreneurswho can create their own job and possibly jobs for others. We have set out to discuss twomajor areas in this paper, i.e. design methodology for entrepreneurship education and formulti-faculty collaboration. We have also highlighted the integration of ICE inside ouruniversity and with our college partners, as well as our efforts toward academicentrepreneurship. Our project (see the Appendix) resulted in the formation of a range ofbusinesses (over 120) and many graduate entrepreneurs.

This paper contributes to the entrepreneurship education community through thesharing of our experiences, our design principles and methodology. In turn, we aim toencourage the growth of graduate entrepreneurship in the UK to overcome the problemof over-supply of university graduates in a very difficult employment market. HarvardBusiness School has recently announced the reinvention of its MBA programme byemphasising more on “learning by doing” and integrating business start-up as arequirement of the course (The Economist, 2011). Harvard Business School is doingthis as part of its reinvention, and ICE in a small way is doing the same for ouruniversity by helping our students to be more employable and entrepreneurial.

References

Alavi, M. (1994), “Computer-mediated collaboration learning: an empirical evaluation”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-174.

Alavi, M., Marakas, G.M. and Yoo, Y. (2002), “A comparative study of distributed learningenvironments on learning outcomes”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 404-415.

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003), “A theory of entrepreneurial opportunityidentification and development”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 105-123.

BBC (2010a), “Forecast suggests 600,000 public sector jobs to go”, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/10457352 (accessed 30 November 2010).

BBC (2010b), “Spending cuts and VAT rise to cost 1.6m jobs, says CIPD”, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11671009 (accessed 30 November 2010).

BBC (2010c), “At a glance: Browne Report”, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11519147 (accessed 30 November 2010).

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

519

Bechard, J.-P. and Gregoire, D. (2005), “Entrepreneurship education research re-visited: the caseof higher education”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 4 No. 1,pp. 22-43.

Browne, J. (2010), “Securing a sustainable future for higher education: an independent review ofhigher education funding and student finance”, available at: http://hereview.independent.gov.uk/hereview/report/ (accessed 30 November 2010).

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2010), Labour Market Outlook: QuarterlySurvey Report, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.

Co, M.J. and Mitchell, B. (2006), “Entrepreneurship education in South Africa: a nationwidesurvey”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 348-359.

Collins, L., Hannon, P.D. and Smith, A. (2004), “Enacting entrepreneurial intent: the gaps betweenstudent needs and higher education capability”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 46 Nos 8/9,pp. 454-463.

Curran, J. and Blackburn, R. (1989), Young People and Enterprise: A National Survey, SmallBusiness Research Centre, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames.

Department for Culture, Media & Sport (2007), Staying Ahead: The Economic Performance of theUK’s Creative Industries, Department for Culture, Media & Sport, London.

Draycott, M. and Rae, D. (2011), “Enterprise education in schools and the role of competencyframeworks”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 17 No. 2,pp. 127-145.

Fletcher, M. (1999), “Promoting entrepreneurship as a career option – the graduate enterpriseprogramme”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 127-139.

Gibb, A. (2011), “Concepts into practice: meeting the challenge of development ofentrepreneurship educators around an innovative paradigm: the case of theInternational Entrepreneurship Educators’ Programme (IEEP)”, International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 146-165.

Gibb, A.A. (1987a), “Designing effective programmes for encouraging the business start-upprocess: lessons from UK experience”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 11No. 4, pp. 24-32.

Gibb, A.A. (1987b), “Enterprise culture: its meaning and implications for education and training”,Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3-38.

Gibb, A.A. (1993), “The enterprise culture and education”, International Small Business Journal,Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 11-34.

Gibb, A.A. (2002), “In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ paradigm for learning:creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations ofknowledge”, International Journal of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 233-269.

Gibb, A., Haskins, G. and Robertson, I. (2009), “Leading the entrepreneurial university: meetingthe entrepreneurial development needs of higher education institutions”, The NationalCouncil for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.

Gibb, A. (2010), “Towards the entrepreneurial university: entrepreneurship education as a leverfor change”, The National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.

Greeno, J.G. (1974), “Processes of learning and comprehension”, in Greg, L.W. (Ed.), Knowledgeand Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Gregoire, D.A., Noel, M.X., Dery, R. and Bechard, J.-P. (2006), “Is there conceptual convergence inentrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of frontiers of entrepreneurshipresearch, 1981-2004”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 333-373.

JSBED20,3

520

Hannon, P. (2007), “Enterprise for all? The fragility of enterprise provision across England’sHEIs”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 183-210.

Harlow, D.N. (1972), “Behavioral theories converge: a dynamic behavioral model”, Academy ofManagement Proceedings, Supplement, pp. 66-68.

Hartshorn, C. and Hannon, P.D. (2005), “Paradoxes in entrepreneurship education: chalk and talkor chalk and cheese? A case approach”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 47 Nos 8/9, pp. 616-627.

Herrmann, K., Hannon, P., Cox, J. and Ternouth, P. (2008), “Developing entrepreneurialgraduates: putting entrepreneurship at the centre of higher education”, The NationalCouncil for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.

Higher Education Statistics Agency (2007), “Career progression of graduates”, press release,6 November, available at: www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/888/161/ (accessed14 December 2010).

Higher Education Statistics Agency (2011), “Higher education student enrolments andqualifications obtained at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom for theacademic year 2009/10”, available at: www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option¼com_content&task¼view&id¼1936&Itemid¼161 (accessed 30 December 2011).

Higher Education Statistics Agency (2012), “Statistics – students and qualifiers at UK HEinstitutions”, available at: www.hesa.ac.uk/content/view/1897/239/ (accessed 30 January2012).

High Fliers Research (2012), The Graduate Market in 2012: Annual Review of GraduateVacancies & Starting Salaries at Britain’s Leading Employers, High Fliers Research,London.

Hills, G.E. (1988), “Variations in university entrepreneurship education: an empirical study of anevolving field”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 109-122.

International Labour Organization (2012), “Global unemployment trends”, available at: www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_171571.pdf (accessed 9 November 2012).

Jones, C. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education: revisiting our role and its purpose”, Journal ofSmall Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 500-513.

Kewin, J., Hughes, T. and Fletcher, T. (2010), Generation Crunch: The Demand for RecentGraduates from SMEs, CFE, London.

Kirby, D.A. (2004), “Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?”,EducationþTraining, Vol. 46 Nos 8/9, pp. 510-519.

Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lane, E. (2010), “What shape are the world’s economies in?”, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10955199 (accessed 30 October 2010).

Laukkanen, M. (2000), “Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurshipeducation: creating micro mechanisms for endogenous regional growth”, Journal ofEntrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 25-47.

Lewis, K. (2005), “The best of intentions: future plans of Young Enterprise Scheme participants”,EducationþTraining, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 470-483.

Lexmond, J. and Bradley, W. (2010), “Class of 2010: a report into the attitudes and aspirations ofthis year’s graduates”, Demos, London.

Lourenco, F. and Jayawarna, D. (2011), “The effect of creativity on post-training outcomes inenterprise education”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 224-244.

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

521

Lourenco, F. and Jones, O. (2006), “Developing entrepreneurship education: comparingtraditional and alternative teaching approaches”, International Journal ofEntrepreneurship Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 111-140.

McKeown, J., Millman, C., Sursani, S.R., Smith, K. and Martin, L.M. (2006), “Graduateentrepreneurship education in the United Kingdom”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 48 Nos 8/9,pp. 597-613.

McMullan, W.E. and Long, W.A. (1987), “Entrepreneurship education in the nineties”, Journal ofBusiness Venturing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 261-275.

Matlay, H. (2006), “Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 2: what is entrepreneurshipeducation and does it matter?”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 48 Nos 8/9, pp. 704-718.

Matlay, H. (2010), “Introduction: Contemporary perspectives on entrepreneurship education andtraining”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, p. x.

Matlay, H. (2011), “The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UKHEIs”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 17 No. 2,pp. 166-182.

Matlay, H. and Carey, C. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a longitudinalperspective”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 252-263.

Nabi, G., Holden, R. and Walmsley, A. (2006), “Graduate career-making and business start-up:a literature review”, EducationþTraining, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 373-385.

National Institute of Economic and Social Research (2012a), press release: embargo, 4 May,available at: www.niesr.ac.uk/pdf/030512_163008.pdf (accessed 10 November 2012).

National Institute of Economic and Social Research (2012b), press release: embargo, 2 November,available: www.niesr.ac.uk/pdf/021112_01155.pdf (accessed 10 November 2012).

National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (2009a), “New businesses are key to survivingthe recession”, available at: http://ncge.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/new-businesses-are-key-to-surviving-the-recession (accessed 30 December 2009).

National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (2009b), “Universities mobilise to supportbusiness and entrepreneurs”, available: http://ncge.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/universities-mobilise-to-support-business-and-entrepreneurs (accessed 30 December 2009).

National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (2009c), “Entrepreneurship, HE and therecession”, available at: http://ncge.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/entrepreneurship-he-and-the-recession/ (accessed 14 January 2010).

National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (2010), “Enterprise and entrepreneurship inhigher education: 2010 National Survey”, available at: www.ncge.com (accessed30 December 2010).

Nurmi, P. and Paasio, K. (2007), “Entrepreneurship in Finnish universities”, Education þTraining, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 56-65.

Office for National Statistics (2012), “Labour market statistics: November 2012”, available at:www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/november-2012/statistical-bulletin.html (accessed 22 November 2012).

Patzelt, H. and Shepherd, D.A. (2009), “Strategic entrepreneurship at universities: academicentrepreneurs’ assessment of policy programs”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 319-340.

Pittaway, L., Hannon, P., Gibb, A. and Thompson, J. (2009), “Assessment practice in enterpriseeducation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 71-93.

JSBED20,3

522

Plaschka, G.R. and Welsch, H.P. (1990), “Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education:curricular designs and strategies”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 3,pp. 55-71.

Rae, D. (2010), “Universities and enterprise education: responding to the challenges of the newera”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 591-606.

Richardson, H. (2010), “Spending review: universities ‘to face £4.2bn cut’”, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11550619 (accessed 30 November 2010).

Robertson, M., Price, A. and Wilkinson, D. (2004), “West Yorkshire Universities GraduateStart-up Partnership: Student Entrepreneurial Intentions Survey 2004 – an analysis of2003-04 Student Entrepreneurial Intentions Survey conducted at Leeds MetropolitanUniversity, the University of Leeds, the University of Huddersfield and the University ofBradford by Business Start-Up @ Leeds Met for Yorkshire Forward”, Yorkshire Forward,Leeds.

Sexton, D.L. and Bowman, N.B. (1984), “Entrepreneurship education: suggestions for increasingeffectiveness”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 18-25.

Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-226.

Shuell, T.J. (1981), “Towards a model of learning from instruction”, Psychological Theory andEducational Practices: Is it Possible to Bridge the Gap? Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Shuell, T.J. (1986), “Cognitive conceptions of learning”, Review of Education Research, Vol. 56No. 4, pp. 411-436.

Smith, A.J., Collins, L.A. and Hannon, P.D. (2006), “Embedding new entrepreneurshipprogrammes in UK higher education institutions: challenges and considerations”,EducationþTraining, Vol. 48 Nos 8/9, pp. 555-567.

Stamm, B.v. (2003), Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity, Wiley, Chichester.

The Economist (2011), “Field of dreams: Harvard Business School reinvents its MBA course”,3 December, available at: www.economist.com/node/21541045?fsrc¼scn/tw/te/ar/fieldofdreams (accessed 30 December 2011).

UCAS (2012), “Total applicants for all courses”, available at: www.ucas.ac.uk/about_us/media_enquiries/media_releases/2012/20120709 (accessed 9 November 2012).

Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Mariotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. and Sepulveda, A. (2009),“Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meetthe global challenges of the 21st century”, paper presented at the World Economic Forum,Geneva.

Wittrock, M.C. (1978), “The cognitive movement in instruction”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 13,pp. 15-29.

Wittrock, M.C. (1986), “Students’ thought processes” in Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.), Handbook ofResearch on Teaching, 3rd ed., Macmillan, New York, NY.

Wood, M.S. (2009), “Does one size fit all? The multiple organizational forms leading to auccessfulacademic entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 4,pp. 929-947.

Further reading

National Institute of Economic and Social Research (2011), press release: embargo, 3 November,available at: www.niesr.ac.uk/pdf/031111_83237.pdf (accessed 30 November 2011).

Paton, G. (2010), “Top A-level students could miss out on university”, The Telegraph, 8 August.

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

523

AppendixThe following is a list of examples of companies created via education for entrepreneurship:

. eBay interface business;

. fancy dress;

. gadgets;

. calendars;

. laptop covers;

. gifts;

. websites;

. consultants;

. restaurant vouchers;

. animal exercise;

. health and fitness;

. clothing;

. parcel delivery;

. smartphone applications;

. personal attack alarms;

. household security;

. new student welcome packs;

. children’s literature;

. sports events;

. PS3 and other gaming events;

. revision guides;

. event management;

. second-hand books;

. gas certification;

. flat rental;

. phone recycling;

. portable massage;

. yearbook;

. cleaning equipment;

. sandwich delivery;

. student guides;

. under-18 events;

. magazine;

. phone charge stations;

. fancy dress;

. music and culture magazine;

. parcel delivery;

. catering;

JSBED20,3

524

. online bicycle sales;

. domestic energy assessors;

. record label and fashion clothing;

. apps

. health products; and

. organic soup.

Corresponding authorFernando Lourenco can be contacted at: f.lourenco@mmu.ac.uk or fernandolourenco@ift.edu.mo

Integrating“education for

entrepreneurship”

525

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints