This article was downloaded by: [Chinese University of Hong Kong]On: 20 December 2014, At: 09:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Reflective Practice: International andMultidisciplinary PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20

A longitudinal reflection ofblended/reflexive enterprise andentrepreneurial educationJonathan Deacon a & Jacqueline Harris aa University of Wales , Newport, UKPublished online: 08 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Jonathan Deacon & Jacqueline Harris (2011) A longitudinal reflection ofblended/reflexive enterprise and entrepreneurial education, Reflective Practice: International andMultidisciplinary Perspectives, 12:5, 599-613, DOI: 10.1080/14623943.2011.601560

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2011.601560

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A longitudinal reflection of blended/reflexive enterprise andentrepreneurial education

Jonathan Deacon and Jacqueline Harris*

University of Wales, Newport, UK

(Received 29 March 2011; final version received 23 June 2011)

This article seeks to investigate the experiences, aspirations and outcomes ofparticipants on the MA Business and Enterprise Development (MA BED) pro-gramme at the Newport Business School as interpreted through their own reflec-tive practice. The development of an enterprise programme within the NewportBusiness School arose from the need to provide relevant enterprise-related edu-cation and support to students seeking to develop their enterprise skills andentrepreneurial aspirations; it also complemented government policy at the time.The investigation takes a longitudinal approach and further seeks to explore thepedagogic success (or not) of a blended enterprise education and entrepreneur-ship education masters programme from the participants’ standpoint. Resultssuggest that a blended/reflective pedagogic approach to enterprise and entrepre-neurship education has value in developing a wider range of skills within partic-ipants and also has a greater effect on aspiration. In this case ‘aspiration’appears to be closely linked to an individual’s confidence (a likelihood that theywill be positively predisposed to negative circumstances) which in turn has adisproportionate (positive) effect on their ability to identify and rationaliseopportunity. The latter reference to rationalisation appears linked to the higher-level thinking (reflective practice: both reflection and reflexivity) and analyticalskills developed throughout the masters programme.

Keywords: enterprise; education; entrepreneurship; reflexive; pedagogy; policy;risk

Introduction

The MA Business and Enterprise Development (MA BED) programme was a post-graduate qualification with three stages: a certificate; diploma; and masters stage(one-year full-time/two-year part-time). The objectives of the programme were toprovide within the University of Wales, Newport: ‘support to encourage anddevelop entrepreneurship’. The structure and content of the programme was devel-oped around three key themes:

(1) the person;(2) the environment; and(3) the business opportunity.

*Corresponding author. Email: jackie.harris@newport.ac.uk

Reflective PracticeAquatic InsectsVol. 12, No. 5, October 2011, 599–613

ISSN 1462-3943 print/ISSN 1470-1103 online� 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14623943.2011.601560http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

The qualification addressed the need to provide relevant higher education to sup-port the innovation, creative and entrepreneurial development of individuals withinnew and existing small firms. The programme aimed to provide students with anunderstanding of entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial business activities, to enablethem to enhance and develop their own or others’ required knowledge, skills andattitude in starting up, running or developing further a small business or enterprise.Teaching and learning within the programme was a blended approach of lectures,workshops, guest speakers/lecturers and Q&A (war stories) sessions with businesspeople/entrepreneurs and policymakers. Students had the opportunity to participatein and attend networking and business support sessions in partnership with theWelsh Assembly Government and the local Regional Development Agency (RDA)(Newport and Gwent Enterprise). The method of assessment throughout the pro-gramme was ‘reflexive’, an approach to behavioural change (Osterman & Kottk-amp, 2004) that had been successfully used to develop entrepreneurial behaviourand practice before (see Jones-Evans, Williams, & Deacon, 2000). Thus, theblending of a multitude of externalised pedagogic stimuli with a personalisedreflective element was planned to answer the critique of ‘management education’of Cunningham (1991) when he observed that professional business performance(and thus entrepreneurial behaviour) is a function of the successful combination ofknowledge, skills and attitude; then typically education at masters level hasfocused on the first of these, largely ignored the second and assumed that the thirdis inherent within the student. Whilst one can argue that much has changed sinceCunningham wrote his critique (and indeed that much has not), one thing thatappears to have been largely overlooked in the entrepreneurship literature is theconcept of ‘refection-in-action’ and the use of reflective practice to enhance entre-preneurial attitude. The BED teaching team consisted of academic staff but mainlypractitioners (in a ratio of about 2:1), some of whom had been or were stillinvolved in setting up and running businesses or were specialists in areas such asmarketing, finance, business support and venture capital funding.

The programme targeted the development of skills that would:

� enable and encourage the support and creation of new business(es);� be used in existing small and medium enterprises (SMEs), by those working

in the area of business support;� allow individuals looking to achieve a personal goal through starting and

developing their own business idea or enterprise opportunity;� enable those in larger organisations where the need for innovative intra-

preneurial skills would become increasingly important to the futureeconomy; and

� develop lifelong ‘reflexive’ skills.

The programme was accredited as a University of Wales qualification, and theWelsh European Funding Office confirmed approval in June 2002 for an initialtwo-year project. The MA BED programme continued for a total of five years (fivecohorts). In the final three years, students were recruited on a self-funding basis (noEuropean Social Fund (ESF) bursary support available). After the initial two-yearESF project period, the programme was placed in the school’s mainstream courseportfolio and was removed from the portfolio in 2007 and enterprise education wasintroduced as a (non-reflexive) ‘theme’ in a restructured MBA.

600 J. Deacon and J. Harris

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Background literature

Historic context of enterprise education

Small has become beautiful once again – especially from an economic developmentpoint of view. This attractiveness stems from the recognition that small firm birth,development and growth has an acknowledged centrality as a necessary competitiveinstrument to a ‘modern, vibrant and progressive economy’ (Beaver & Prince,2004, p. 34); further, the importance of the sector to the growth and well-being ofan economy is underlined by the interest shown by researchers from: business; mar-keting; socio-economics; politics; and social regeneration (Beaver & Carr, 2002;Stanworth & Gray, 1991).

During the 1980s, a new foundation to the economy emerged primarily in theUS and primarily based within the computer industry. It was an economic evolutionthat had as its driver a dynamic business sector made up of small firms that weremanaged in very entrepreneurial and informal ways – especially in the software andbiotechnology sectors (Thurik & Wennekers, 2004). The work of Birch (1979)became central to the policy thrust in the American economy for the establishment,development and growth of the small and entrepreneurial firm (Timmons, 1999;Gibb & Davis, 1990), while in the UK the early 1980s saw spiralling unemploy-ment and political unrest (Storey & Johnson, 1987). Indeed, Thurik and Wennekers(2004, p. 143) comment: ‘as Europe’s unemployment soared into double digits andgrowth stagnated, the capacity of the US entrepreneurial economy to generate bothjobs and higher wages became the object of envy’.

However, it is argued (Jones & Iredale, 2010) that the basis for change hadalready begun within UK education for a more ‘enterprise’ focussed curricular tobetter fit the requirements of business and industry (or certainly the future needs).Jones and Iredale highlight the ‘Ruskin’ speech given by James Callaghan atRuskin College, Oxford in 1976, as the birthplace for many contemporary views onenterprise education, as Callaghan identified that there was a skills shortfall at thetime, (alluding to enterprise skills) and that education and industry needed to fostercloser links in order to develop more appropriate curricular to develop the economy,and thereby improve society through wealth creation (Callaghan, 1976). The speechbecame a catalyst for progressive education reforms, resulting in the developmentof a National Curriculum and the introduction of Technical and Vocational Educa-tion Initiative (TVEI), the latter aimed at developing ‘non-curricular’ skills espe-cially in students who were not motivated by ‘normative’ academic attainment. TheTVEI initiative was seen as part of a ‘new vocationalism’ within education and canbe identified as ‘laying the foundation for enterprise education’ (Jones & Iredale,2010, p. 9).

An (evolutionary) economy context

Evolutionary economists and social scientists (for example, see Penrose, 1959;Kauffman, 1993; Romer, 1994) will argue that to stimulate an entrepreneurial econ-omy (one that has the right mix of firms at the various stages of growth and matu-rity to sustain economic well-being) a cultural (and implicit educational) shift needsto take place and not simply a change of political policy (Entrepreneurial ActionPlan for Wales [EAP], 1999). Indeed, the view that national and regional economiesare successful because of evolutionary shifts is supported by many who share the

Reflective Practice 601

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Schumpeter (1934) ‘creative destruction’ stance (European Union., 2003), and theconsequential and obvious outcome of such policy: that there is a need to encourageand develop a constant stream of ‘new’ entrepreneurs who are opportunistic of, andadaptive to, dynamic business environments (Giunipero, Denslow, & Eltantawy,2005).

Bjerke and Hultman (2002) suggest that there are many signs to indicate thatsmall firms will be most able to capitalise on opportunities emerging from thedynamic socio-economic situations. The ability for small firms to adapt to evolvingsocial change and seize opportunities through innovation can be seen as a necessityfor survival. However, by necessity, this calls for the owner/manager/entrepreneur/employee to be equipped with the skills to adapt to the economic dynamic. Thedebate surrounding the development of entrepreneurial skills (nature/nurture) contin-ues (see, for example, Henry, Hill, & Leitch, 2005); however, a growing body ofacademic research suggests that entrepreneurship can be taught (Kuratko, 2005);and further, those entrepreneurs that have had exposure to higher education aremore likely to have a global view, be faster to adapt existing business models andintegrate technology earlier in the business development phase (Scase, 2007). Giventhis level of sophistication, these entrepreneurs are therefore thought more likely touse high-level skills in developing ventures and therefore add greater value to regio-nal economies (Minniti & Levesque, 2008).

In a UK context the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), through the‘Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative’ (Whiteley, 1995), pursued education poli-cies that developed an understanding of the skills needed for both employed workand self-employed work, and encouraged closer links between business and educa-tion and, in particular, business leaders and educationalists, thus developing a futureworkforce that is ‘enterprising’ within different contexts (Department of Trade andIndustry [DTI], 2000, 2001). This ‘entrepreneurial mindset’ is thought central toenable societies and the firms within them to cope with the ambiguity and complex-ity of contemporary economic structures. However, as Taatila (2010, p. 49) criti-cally observes: ‘unfortunately, the current situation of support for entrepreneurshipin higher education lacks depth, at least within the EU. Only about 24% of univer-sity students have access to any education on entrepreneurship. The more focussedthe subject branch the less likelihood there is of a student learning entrepreneurialskills’.

Definitional ambiguity

There is without doubt great ambiguity with both the definition of the term ‘enter-prise education’ and the context in which the term is increasingly used, as Jonesand Iredale (2010) comment: ‘enterprise education is a chimera that can mean allthings to all people – enterprise and entrepreneurship education are perceived to beconflated terms that for many in the education and business communities meanmuch the same thing’. The definitional issue appears to stem from the apparent fre-quent substitution of the terms enterprise and entrepreneurship within an educationalcontext and often by policymakers and within academic debate. Such definitionalmisappropriation is not uncommon within the business and management discipline,as linguistic use produces meaning through narrative in context (Deacon, 2008).

However, Gibb (1993) suggests that enterprise education has a focus upon thedevelopment of skills, behaviours and attributes which can inform an individual’s

602 J. Deacon and J. Harris

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

future approach to problem-solving, so in essence a ‘mindset’. Gibb (1993) continuesand differentiates enterprise education from ‘entrepreneurship education’, suggestingthat the latter is more clearly about business start up and development. Jones and Ire-dale (2010) discuss the definitional problem at length in their paper and conclude:‘entrepreneurship education focuses primarily on the needs of the entrepreneur,whereas enterprise education addresses the requirements of a wider range of stake-holders, including consumers and the wider community’ (2010, p. 11). WhereasJones and English (2004, p. 416) define entrepreneurial education as ‘a process ofproviding individuals with the ability to recognise commercial opportunities and theinsight, self-esteem, knowledge and skills to act on them’. Nevertheless, Jamison’stypology of entrepreneurial education is of value to this article. Jamieson (1984) pro-posed three distinct classes of entrepreneurial education:

(1) About enterprise;(2) For enterprise; and(3) In enterprise.

The MA BED programme focussed firmly on the latter two of these classes (butdid consider the first), concurring with the views of Herrmann, Hannon, Cox, Tern-outh, and Crowley (2008) when they posit that entrepreneurial education should beless transitional (learning ‘about’) and more experiential (learning ‘for’). Thus, theMA BED programme structure allowed for a general understanding about entrepre-neurship as a phenomenon within society (Hytti & O’Gorman, 2004), moved to afocus on the creation of a venture (Co & Mitchell, 2006) and considered in detailthe development of innovative and creative management thinking for those withinexisting organisations (corporate enterprising) (Kirby, 2004).

Entrepreneurial pedagogy or experiential andragogy

The development of pedagogy within enterprise and entrepreneurial education iswell documented within extant literature (Pittway & Cope, 2007). The central fea-ture of much of the literature surrounding ‘entrepreneurial education’ is the develop-ment of a blended pedagogic and experiential learning intervention (see, forexample, Cunningham, 1991; Jack & Anderson, 1999; Jones-Evans et al., 2000;Matlay, 2006; Jones & Iredale, 2006; Volkmann et al., 2009), Jones and Iredale(2010, p. 12) making the distinction that enterprise education is and can be devel-oped across subject areas, whereas entrepreneurship education is typically deliveredin higher education (HE) via business school modules.

In either case, the role of the ‘lecturer’ is key, as she or he adopt facilitation andmentoring approaches to individual reflexive development as opposed to ‘norma-tive’ didactic approaches. Jones and Iredale (2010) comment on this advance: ‘thechallenge for the lecturer is to develop a teaching style that encourages learning bydoing, exchange, experiment, positive mistake-making, calculated risk-taking, crea-tive problem-solving and interaction with the outside world’ (p. 12); they conclude:‘students also need to learn to adapt to this distinctive approach to teaching andlearning, which requires interaction and independent thought’ (p. 12). Further,commenting on the contemporary entrepreneurial skills of European HE academics,Taatila (2010, p. 49) observes: ‘the competence and time allocated by academicstaff to entrepreneurial education is inadequate’, especially in reference to the

Reflective Practice 603

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

aspiration of governments that see entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial ventures driv-ing regional and national economies out of recession.

Controversially, how and when learning/development takes place is less easy todefine and measure in entrepreneurial students, perhaps due in part to the holisticnature of skill attainment within entrepreneurship education, the inverse of the ‘ato-mised’ approach used in ‘traditional’ theory based teaching (Rae, 2000). Therefore‘pragmatic’ learning environments are key to the development of entrepreneurialcompetence (where psychological and social skills are enhanced) where a ‘realworld’ complexity is acknowledged and ‘factual’ certainties are rare (Bennis &O’Toole, 2005), ‘pragmatism is focussed on education for or in enterprise, acquiringknowledge in real-life situations is neither inductive nor deductive, but an abductiveprocess ... where learning should be inner-directed’ (Taatila, 2010, p. 56), andwhere reflexive practices have great educational value. To some extent such adebate is incomplete without reference to the literature on ‘strengths-based educa-tion’ (Holland, 1994); however, such strengths-based approaches in organizationalsettings have empathy within entrepreneurial education in that the teaching/learningmethodology shifts from the participants knowledge weaknesses (knowledge defi-cits) to the strengths (knowledge assets).

In his conclusion, Taatila poses several questions for those who are involved indeveloping entrepreneurial education; these focus on the tension between the ‘nor-mative’ theory-based approach taken to teaching and learning by universities andthe ‘pragmatic’ contextual, experiential and reflexive approach needed to developentrepreneurial graduates, the most pertinent is illustrated thus:

should there be some type of motivational course for all students in higher educationinstitutions in order to present the positive sides of entrepreneurship? The presentenvironment, at least from a Finnish perspective, tends to stress the risks related to aself-managed career. (Taatila, 2010, p. 57)

However, empirical based studies based in organisational settings like that of Taatilaare rare in contemporary literature, as are studies that seek insight into the develop-ment of reflexive practice-based entrepreneurial education.

Summation

Thus, entrepreneur and entrepreneurial educationalists find themselves in a post-modern educational paradox, where they face a paradoxical juxtaposition of opposi-tional views in that, at a corporate level, many HE institutions espouse the conceptof enterprise as it relates to a university setting, yet within the academic school set-ting the risks of achieving a ‘self actualised’ state in the form of self-employment oremployer (self-managed career) is stressed and reinforced through pedagogic assess-ment and administrative structures. If the educationalist is therefore to adopt anasset-based approach and create customised curricular within specialised learningenvironments, that have positive and longitudinal impact (VanTassel-Baska, 1994), itis highly likely that they, too, are entrepreneurial and enterprising and work withinthe gaps that are created by academic administrative structures. Thus, this (ongoing)study offers insight into the development of a reflexive-based educational pro-gramme and how such intervention has impacted upon the participants over time –aspects which are not fully developed in extant literature.

604 J. Deacon and J. Harris

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Methodology

In order to investigate the outcomes of the MA BED programme – especially witha focus on: the longitudinal impact of the programme on participants experiences,aspirations and reflections; and the use of a blended/reflective approach to enterpriseeducation and entrepreneurship education (thus a programme ‘about’, ‘for’ and ‘in’entrepreneurship) – we take a mixed method approach and employ quantitative andqualitative methods of data generation and data analysis.

The design had two distinct phases of enquiry and analysis – where the qualita-tive analysis will supplement the initial quantitative data.

Phase One

Instruments used in phase one of the study therefore have initially been based on afactual quantitative analysis and reporting of data generated by course documenta-tion (the reflective journals of the students) and student records. The reflective jour-nals were analysed through a process of recursive abstraction (Stebbins, 2001)which developed ‘base’ themes without the need for detailed coding that were thenused as the departure points for the second phase of the study.

Phase Two

Phase two was developed by in-depth open-ended reflexive (responsive) interview-ing of a sample (self-selection) of the participants, where an interpretivist approachto data analysis through an iterative process (Weik, 1995; Holliday, 2007) devel-oped phase one themes that have subsequently been further explored using the sameanalytical method within phase three of the ongoing study.

The use of an iterative approach is a recommended method for researchingsocially constructed phenomena and has its precedent in Deacon (2008). Carson,Gilmore, and Grant (2001, p. 7) suggest that the interpretivist approach allows theresearch to gain an insight to the social construction of meaning in relation to agiven context, ‘the aim is to understand and explain why people (actors) havedifferent experiences, rather than search for external causes and fundamental lawsto explain their behaviour’.

The units of analysis in the study are drawn from the 68 students that enrolledon the programme and participated in one or more stages of the programme. Sam-ples were self-selecting after an initial email or hard copy communication from theresearchers, as at this stage the study design did not want to pre-determine the inputor output characteristics of the participants, but instead just wanted the data toevolve in order to gain insight and richness.

Results and discussion: phase one – quantitative data

Recruitment

The total number of students recruited to the programme over the five years was 68(see Table 1). Of this number, 40 students were recruited over the two years thatthe programme was funded through European Social Funding and where studentshad access, if eligible, to bursary monies to pay for fees, equipment and travel. Dur-ing this period the programme also recruited five students that were self-funded(non-ESF support).

Reflective Practice 605

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

The most successful year for recruitment was year two of the programme. Thiswould suggest that ESF support has, during this time, a positive effect on studentrecruitment, as subsequent years’ recruitment figures, although acceptable initially,waned. The non-ESF-supported years recruited, in total, only 28 students.

Retention

In terms of retention, the figures in Table 2 provide some interesting insight.Overall, only 10 students left the programme without completing any part of thetaught programme. However, of those that did withdraw, nine were part of the ESF-supported element of the programme (the project) and only one student from theremaining three years of the programme withdrew early. This would suggest thatsupport, in terms of public monies, is no guarantee of a student’s completion/achievement on a course of education, be it entrepreneurial or not, and that for self-funded participants a personal predisposition for completion/achievement was agreater motivation (a behavioural outcome that is concurrent with the entrepreneur-ial attitude of self-efficacy). However, it could be hypothesised that, the programmegained intrinsic value in the eyes of applicants initially by being supported by pub-lic funding, and that early withdrawal from the programme was driven by students

Table 2. Number of students recruited, less early leavers.

Recruited Sub total Early leavers Totals

Cohort 1 13 2Cohort 2 27⁄ 40 7 31Cohort 3 15Cohort 4 6 1Cohort 5 7 28 27Total 68 58

Note: ⁄Includes five self-funded students (i.e. not eligible for ESF bursary support).

Table 1. Number of students recruited to programme.

ESF funded

Cohort 1 13Cohort 2 27⁄Total 40

Non-ESF funded

Cohort 3y 15Cohort 4y 6Cohort 5 7Total 28

Recruitment total (all years) 68

Notes: ydenotes international student(s) recruited: cohort 3 = 4; cohort 4 = 1.⁄Includes five self-fundedstudents (i.e. not eligible for ESF bursary support).

606 J. Deacon and J. Harris

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

not being fully aware of content, intention of the programme and perceived suitabil-ity to meet aspirations.

Likewise, the tutor team experientially gain insight regarding the type of studentsuitable for the programme and those who are more likely to complete and/orachieve. Staff with experience of the programme might counsel prospective studentsaccordingly; this could be a reason for the high numbers of withdrawals at the earlystage of the programme (staff experience low), and low numbers in later years (staffexperience high).

Analysis of the ‘reflective journals’ shows that for the most part the initial moti-vation for undertaking the programme was to attain the skills and knowledgerequired to set up and start a business/develop a business further. For many stu-dents, by the diploma stage, they had gained these skills and knowledge and there-fore their aspirations had been met; they then exited the programme. Therefore itwas only a small minority of students that wished to achieved the ‘masters’ stage ofthe programme.

Results: phase two – in-depth reflexive interviews and indications of evolvingthemes

In 2010 the study moved to the second phase of the research with eight of the pro-gramme alumni. A series of in-depth reflexive interviews were carried out that havegiven indication of emergent themes within the generated data; a longer list ofemergent themes were initially proposed (in line with the recursive abstractiveapproach), but synergies between sub-themes has allowed for subsumation intothose which are outlined and briefly discussed below.

Confidence

Initial results suggest that a blended pedagogic approach to enterprise and entrepre-neurship education has value in developing a wider range of skills within partici-pants and also has a greater effect on aspiration. In this case ‘aspiration’ appears tobe closely linked to an individual’s confidence (a likelihood that they will be posi-tively predisposed to negative circumstances), which in turn has a disproportionate(positive) effect on their ability to identify and rationalise opportunity. The latterreference to rationalisation appears linked to the higher-level thinking (reflectivepractice: both reflection and reflexivity) and analytical skills developed throughoutthe masters programme.

Opportunity recognition

The propensity and ability to recognise opportunities appears to be closely linked tothe individual’s confidence (see above). The ability to assess (rationalise) and actupon (or not) opportunities in light of their experience, capabilities and resourceavailability was prevalent throughout discussions.

Acceptance of change

Individuals acknowledged their awareness of technology and its part in creating anddeveloping new and fast-moving markets and opportunities and its impact on the

Reflective Practice 607

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

pace of change and development of new innovative business models. The events ofthe past two years (recession) were also acknowledged as one of turbulence anduncertainty. However, despite this commonly perceived ‘difficult period’, individu-als intimated that this did not stop their assessment of, nor would it prevent themfrom taking action on, an opportunity; though perhaps with more caution than nor-mal (evidence of reflexive behaviours), given the instability of not just local butglobal economies.

Awareness of commercial environment

Individuals discussed their awareness, and the importance of, developing a sustain-able brand and business model. This was discussed in relation to individuals’ expe-rience, since completing the programme, of opportunities that they had consideredand/or acted upon, in addition to their observations of other business un/successfulventures.

Communicate and use appropriate language

A reflection of the skills and understanding gained during their participation in theprogramme and an aspect that was considered of high importance was the individ-ual’s ability to be able to discuss (using appropriate language) key terms and termi-nology with professional business service firms (especially those associated withbusiness start up and development), such as accountants and solicitors.

Problem-solving and ambiguity

Discussed in relation to confidence and opportunity recognition, individualsexpressed their capacity for approaching and solving problems in a more positive(and creative) way, and their capacity to cope and deal with stress situations thatthey may previously have perceived as ambiguous in a more creative and construc-tive manner.

Action and lifelong learning

Individuals acknowledged that their experiences on the programme had providedthem with a clearer insight into the benefits of becoming action-learning-oriented(with reflection) and actively sought out new experiences, new opportunities tolearn (formal and informal), some of which had impacted on personal as well asprofessional life pathways.

Conclusions: phase one and two

Thus, this study has indicated uniqueness in two distinct ways. Firstly, the longitu-dinal ‘topic’ approach of the methodology as suggested by Carson et al. (2001,p. 219), where accumulated knowledge, insights and understanding can contributeto experiential knowledge development of how the participants have used praxiswithin their ongoing personal development (thus, the aim of developing lifelongreflexive skills). The study also highlights a paucity of similar ‘over time’ studieswithin the extant literature of entrepreneurship and enterprise interventions within a

608 J. Deacon and J. Harris

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

UK context. And secondly, that the study considers the nature and typology of a‘blended’ approach to asset-based learning, blended in this case being the mix ofentrepreneurial stimuli interventions from a wide range of sources – including theparticipants own case histories. Thus, the MA BED was neither a programme‘about’ enterprise nor was it ‘for’ entrepreneurship, but was driven by the partici-pants’ self-acknowledged strengths through a series of ‘blended’ and ‘reflexive’steps from recognition (about), through cognition (for), to application (in) and there-fore from enterprise education to entrepreneurship education to self actualisation.

The results of the study show clearly that it was attractive to three distinct‘groups’ of participants:

(1) Those who found themselves in a role that demanded a greater understandingof ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ (therefore seeking knowledge ‘about’);

(2) Those who were or had been nascent entrepreneurs and needed ‘entrepre-neurship education’ ‘for’ venture start up; and

(3) Those who were engaged in a venture and were therefore ‘in’ enterprise andwere seeking enterprise development skills in order to develop the extantventure.

As somewhat predicted, there have been observable outcome and completion differ-ences between those participants who received government bursaries (ESF) andthose who were self-funding; however not all nor either fall within the same groupdynamic as outlined above.

Implications for practice

An implication of the study suggests that the ‘blended/reflective’ approach usedwithin the BED programme may have resulted in synergistic benefits to the partici-pants and the ‘tutor’ team. The extant literature briefly discusses the need for a dif-ferent approach to delivery of such programmes, and that ‘blended’ in thiseducational context refers to the mix of methods used in ‘creating’ what VanTassel-Baska (1994) refers to as ‘specialist learning environments’ where the curricular iscustomized by the participant ‘through’ socialized participation and reflexivity sup-ported by tutors to further enhance their ‘knowledge asset’. An integral part of the‘blended/reflexive’ approach was a welcomed (by the participants) move away fromreductionist-type delivery as found in other MA/MBA courses. The MA BED, inthe need to move along a continuum from recognition through cognition to applica-tion, used a holistic and contextual approach to knowledge development. Thus,‘specialist’ tutors (finance, marketing, human resources, law) were sought by partic-ipants as and when the individual need arose within the course of the programme –and thus an androgenic design.

The MA BED interventions typically took place in the university boardroomand were discursive and free flowing; however, alternative ‘non-traditional’ venueswere also used (at the request of the participants) and included restaurants and pubs,as well as ‘site’ visits to businesses and policymakers who were part of the ‘tutor’team. Such an informal approach sits within the paradox faced by educators withinthe field of enterprise education, as discussed earlier, and can be dismissed by ‘nor-mative’ practitioners as a frivolous and neo-liberal approach to education which haslittle to do with the ‘serious’ business of business. It is a view that can be ‘perhaps’

Reflective Practice 609

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

justified by the current lack of conceptual and empirical studies to date – but thisstudy begins to indicate that such approaches to knowledge development can benefitfrom both a review of historical precedents and the methodologies used in otherfields in order to bring clarity and insight into the development of ‘blended/reflex-ive’ entrepreneurship programmes. It is also suggested that practitioners of entrepre-neurship education curricular may want to develop the ‘blended’ approach incontext for their practice, as this study is beginning to show that it has clear bene-fits in developing the specialist learning environment needed to develop lifelongentrepreneurial skill sets.

Implications for policy

Taatila (2010) observes that the university system (in his case Finland, but this studysuggests more widespread risk-averse institutional culture) promotes and reinforcesthe negative aspects of entrepreneurship and thus the perceived ‘dangers’ of the‘self-managed career’. This study has identified that participants are open to and wel-come the androgogic approach to development and career, and the study observesthat an individual drawn to such a programme is likely to have a pre-disposition toself-direction and thus reflective practice. However, the implication for policy issomewhat wider than that which concentrates on entrepreneurship education. Thewider question that arises is one that asks: is there an implicit negative ethos in thefabric of many, if not all, of the content of courses within a university (or scholastic)environment towards self-actualisation? This question gives rise to a second: doessuch an implicit negativity towards ‘self-actualisation’ impact on the ability forentrepreneurship scholars to develop and establish specialist curricular? The answerto these questions could have major implications for the development of the econ-omy and therefore wider society in the longer term, but also may shed light on theclear enterprise motivational differentials between countries, as illustrated by the gapbetween the number of patents applied for and registered in the US and the UK. A‘blended’ approach may thus suggest that the use of a wider range of entrepreneurialstimuli – especially stimuli that are delivered by ‘non-educationalists’ may just gosome way to redressing the institutionalised risk-averse culture not just within uni-versities but, perhaps more importantly, within lecture rooms. The ongoing nature ofthis study, it is hoped, will develop this insight yet further.

Notes

The data presented is analysed by cohort. It does not indicate (at this stage), gender,age, prior knowledge, skills, qualifications and/or business/self-employment experi-ence. It is also not analysed for nationality/residence, i.e. UK/European or interna-tional student status.

The following criteria/definitions and anomalies were considered during analysisof the data generated:

� Project – this refers to the first two years of the Masters in Business andEnterprise programme.

� Programme – refers to the course in total and includes the stages at postgrad-uate level of: certificate; diploma; and masters.

610 J. Deacon and J. Harris

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

� ESF beneficiaries – the initial data presented focuses on the two-yearESF-funded project/programme where the majority of the cohort wasfinancially supported (fees paid) due to their eligibility to receive a bursary.

� Non-ESF beneficiaries – these students were either (a) not eligible to receivea bursary under the ESF project criteria and within the project timeframe(e.g., cohort 1–2); or (b) were enrolled outside of the project time frame (i.e.cohorts 3–5).

� Self-funded – those students (a) not in receipt of or eligible for an ESF bur-sary and therefore not an ESF beneficiary (cohorts 1–2); or (b) fees were paidfor through personal or other funds (e.g. student loan, employer, other) andtherefore are classed as a non-ESF beneficiary.

� Presentation of percentages – where possible, all percentages have beenrounded up/down to the nearest whole number.

Notes on contributorsJonathan Deacon is a reader in Marketing and Entrepreneurship at Newport Business,University of Wales, Newport, UK.

Jacqueline Harris is a senior lecturer in Marketing at Newport Business, University ofWales, Newport, UK.

ReferencesBeaver, G., & Carr, P. (2002). The enterprise culture: Understanding a misunderstood con-

cept. Journal of Strategic Change, 11(2), 105–113.Beaver, G., & Prince, C. (2004). Management, strategy and policy in the UK small business

sector: A critical review. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(1),34–39.

Bennis, W.G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard BusinessReview, 83(5), 96–104.

Birch, D. (1979). The job creation process. Unpublished report. In MIT Programme onNeighbourhood and Regional Change, prepared for the Economic Development Admin-istration, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Bjerke, B., & Hultman, C. (2002). Entrepreneurial marketing the growth of small firms inthe new economic era. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Callaghan, J. (1976). Towards a national debate. Speech delivered at Ruskin College,Oxford, 18 October.

Carson, C., Gilmore, A., & Grant, K. (2001). SME marketing in practice. Marketing Intelli-gence and Planning, 9(1), 6–11.

Co, M., & Mitchell, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship education in South Africa: A nationwidesurvey. Education and Training, 48(5), 348–359.

Cunningham, A.C. (1991). Developing managers: A study of the training and educationalneeds of public enterprise managers. Working paper prepared for the Economic Devel-opment Institute of the World Bank.

Deacon, J.H. (2008). A study of the meaning and operation of the language for marketing incontext. PhD thesis, University of Ulster.

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). (2000). Excellence and opportunity – a scienceand innovation policy for the 21st century. (White Paper, Cm 4814). London: HMSO.

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). (2001). Productivity in the UK: Enterprise andthe productivity challenge. London: HMSO.

Entrepreneurial Action Plan for Wales (EAP). (1999). Offering a helping hand to futureWelsh Stars – consultation document. Cardiff: Welsh Development Agency.

European Union. (2003). Green paper: Entrepreneurship in Europe. Brussels: Commissionof the European Communities.

Reflective Practice 611

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Gibb, A., & Davis, L. (1990). In pursuit of frameworks for the development of growth mod-els of the small business. International Small Business Journal, 9(1), 15–31.

Gibb, A.A. (1993). The enterprise culture and education: Understanding enterprise educationand its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider entrepreneurial goals. Inter-national Small Business Journal, 11(3), 11–34.

Giunipero, L.C., Denslow, D., & Eltantawy, R. (2005). Purchasing/supply chain managementflexibility: Moving to an entrepreneurial skill set. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(6), 602–613.

Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepre-neurship be taught? Part 1 and 2. Education and Training, 47(2/3), 98–111 and 158–169.

Herrmann, K., Hannon, P., Cox, J., Ternouth, P., & Crowley, T. (2008). Developing entrepre-neurial graduates: Putting entrepreneurship at the centre of higher education. London:Council for Industry and Higher education (CIHE), National Council for Graduate Entre-preneurship (NGCE) and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts(NESTA).

Holland, J.L. (1994). Separate but unequal is better. In M.L. Savickas & R.W. Lent (Eds.),Convergence in career development theories (pp. 45–52). Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.

Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Hytti, U., & O’Gorman, C. (2004). What is enterprise education? An analysis of the objec-

tives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries. Edu-cation and Training, 46(1), 11–23.

Jack, S.L., & Anderson, A.R. (1999). Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise cul-ture: Producing reflective practitioners. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behav-iour and Research, 5(3), 159–176.

Jamieson, I. (1984). Education for enterprise. In A.G. Watts & P. Moran (Eds.), CRAC (pp.19–27). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Jones, B., & Iredale, N. (2006). Developing an entrepreneurial life skills summer school.Innovations in Teaching and Learning International, 43(3), 233–244.

Jones, B., & Iredale, N. (2010). Enterprise education as pedagogy. Education and Training, 52(1), 7–19.

Jones, C., & English, J. (2004). A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education.Education and Training, 46(8/9), 416–423.

Jones-Evans, D., Williams, W., & Deacon, J. (2000). Developing entrepreneurial graduates:An action learning approach. Education and Training, 42(4/5), 289–298.

Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organisation and selection in evolution.New York: Oxford University Press.

Kirby, D. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge?Education and Training, 46(8/9), 531–541.

Kuratko, D. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, andchallenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–598.

Matlay, H. (2006). Researching entrepreneurship and education. Part 2: What is entrepre-neurship education and does it matter? Education and Training, 48(8/9), 704–718.

Minniti, M., & Levesque, M. (2008). Recent developments in the economics of entrepre-neurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 603–612.

Osterman, K.F., & Kottkamp, R.B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators (2nd ed.). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Pittway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evi-

dence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.Rae, D. (2000). Connecting enterprise and graduate employability challenges to higher edu-

cation culture and curriculum? Education and Training, 49(8/9), 605–619.Romer, P. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8

(1), 3–22.Scase, R. (2007). Global remix – the fight for competitive advantage. London: Kogan Page.Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Stanworth, J., & Gray, C. (Eds.). (1991). Bolton 20 years on: The small firm in the 1990s.

London: Chapman.

612 J. Deacon and J. Harris

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Stebbins, R. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Storey, D., & Johnson, S. (1987). Job generation and labour market change. Basingstoke:

Macmillan.Taatila, V.P. (2010). Learning entrepreneurship in higher education. Education and Training,

52(1), 48–61.Thurik, R., & Wennekers, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship, small business and economic growth.

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(1), 140–149.Timmons, G.A. (1999). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century. Boston,

MA: Irwin/McGraw Hill.Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Bos-

ton, MA: Pearson.Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Mariotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S., & Sepulveda, A.

(2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs, unlocking entrepreneurial capabilitiesto meet the global challenges of the 21st century: A report of the global education initia-tive. Paper presented at The World Economic Forum, Geneva, April.

Weik, K. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,385–390.

Whiteley, T. (1995). Enterprise in higher education – an overview from the Department forEducation and Employment. Education and Training, 37(9), 4–8.

Reflective Practice 613

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Chi

nese

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g] a

t 09:

41 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014