Embedding enterprise education: A service based transferable skills framework

The International Journal of Management Education xxx (2014) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of Management Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ i jme

Embedding enterprise education: A service based transferableskills framework

Anne M.J. Smith a,*, Robert A. Paton b

aDepartment of Business Management, Glasgow School for Business and Society, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road,Glasgow G4 OBA, UKbAdam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, West Quadrangle, Gilbert Scott Building, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 November 2013Received in revised form 20 January 2014Accepted 5 February 2014

Keywords:Enterprise educationTransferable skillsEmployability21st century graduate

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 (0) 141 331 357E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M.J. Sm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.02.0021472-8117/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Smith, Askills framework, The International Journal

a b s t r a c t

Enterprise and entrepreneurship education, according to government reports, should beembedded within Higher Education (HE) however, although many HEI’s are experienced inprogramme led initiatives, they have less knowledge of cross-school and campus wideprovision. This paper argues that an alternative approach, based upon embedding trans-ferable skills into the curriculum, produces more consistent and sustainable results thanpolicy led enterprise programme initiatives, especially when informed by a systematic andintegrated transferable skills framework.This paper analyses the provision and nature of the transferable skills associated with four,highly successful, enterprise programmes. Using content analysis and a thematic codingsystem, existing programme documents are analysed to generate a service based frame-work of transferable skills that can be embedded across institutions.The findings suggest that resource sensitive initiatives are problematic with regard tomaintaining sustainable learning programmes and that an embedded transferable skillsapproach offers greater consistency. We conclude with a framework of transferable skillsinformed by empirical research, designed to embed such skills across the curriculum, thusshaping the 21st century graduate.The service based framework is an institutional tool for programmes and curriculumdesign beyond the business school and offers an alternative approach to embedding en-terprise education.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Concerns relating to graduate employability, combined with rising tuition fees and ongoing funding debates, will ensurethe continued, at times controversial, topicality of enterprise and entrepreneurship within Higher Education (HE) (Billett,2009; European Commission 2012; QAA, 2012). Stakeholders are rightly concerned that provision is fit for purpose, pro-vides value for money and delivers results. This paper endeavours, with the 21st century graduate in mind, how best todetermine and service transferable skills provision. It does so by adopting a systematic and integrated methodology toproduce a holistic transferable skills framework. Within Institutions offering multi contextual learning environments, across

4.ith).

. M. J., & Paton, R. A., Embedding enterprise education: A service based transferableof Management Education (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.02.002

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14728117

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.02.002



A.M.J. Smith, R.A. Paton / The International Journal of Management Education xxx (2014) 1e112

disciplines such as health, engineering and business, standardisation of transferable skills provision is both complex andseemingly unsustainable, the service framework offers a contribution to the evolution of transferable skills provision.

2. Background

There have been developments in the skills and learning discourse, for example, the Scottish Higher EducationEnhancement Committee (SHEEC) has expressed the desire to enhance and expand the delivery of transferable skills (SHEEC,2011). Various projects have been launched to stimulate collaboration on educational innovation. The SHEEC initiative is allembracing in that it aims to encourage flexible learning and enhance transferable skills delivery, while contextualising ac-quired knowledge and understanding. However, this discourse is not parochial, for example the World Economic Forum(2009) and CIHE/NCGE/NESTA (2008) both articulate the need for change, calling for stakeholders to consider how best toembed transferable skills, they point to industry connectivity and curriculum transformation as being essential prerequisitesto success. Such policy initiatives can be faddish and transient as they are often dependent upon political agendas and in-terpretations (NCGE and ISBE, 2010). This in turn colours the view taken of them by the institutions and academics.

2.1. Employability, enterprise and entrepreneurship

Policy initiatives and debates relating to transferable skills tend to ignore or gloss over very real academic and institutionalconcerns. These concerns, relating to academic definitions, institutional resource silos, employability services and sustainableincome streams, converge to discourage proactive institutional responses. Indeed, there is much debate as to not only whatare transferable skills? But also where are they to be located? Clearly certain subjects engage directly with practice and othersindirectly, the classics scholar will have acquired transferable skills as will the civil engineer. Enterprise, entrepreneurship andemployability offerings are, by their very nature, vocationally orientated and designed to produce direct benefits to thestudents and potential employer. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) special issue report on Education and Training(Martinez, Levie, Kelley, Saemundsson, & Schott, 2010), notes, as do Blenker, Dreisler, and Kjeldsen (2008), the significance ofenterprise education in stimulating socio-economic growth, implying that it is closely linked to employability and trans-ferable skills. This paper and the research upon which it is based adopted for clarity and coherence the term enterpriseeducation. An extended debate surrounds the definitions of enterprise and entrepreneurship education, with issues of cul-tural, custom and practice affecting the usage of each term and preferences towards the correctness of terminology inparticularly contexts. However custom and practice associates entrepreneurship education with venture creation anddevelopment, with enterprise education being seen to be a rather broad expression, inclusive rather than exclusive, beingdefined as:

Pleasskills

‘Enterprise education is the application of creative ideas and innovations to practical situations ewith enterprise educationaiming to produce individuals with the mindset and skills to respond to opportunities, needs and shortfalls, with key skillsincluding taking the initiative, decision making, problem solving, networking, identifying opportunities and personaleffectiveness. Enterprise provision can be applied to all areas of education, extending beyond knowledge acquisition to a widerange of emotional, social, and practical skills; and

Entrepreneurship education is the application of enterprise skills specifically to the creation and growth of organisations,with entrepreneurship education focusing on developing skills and applying an enterprising mindset in the specific contextsof setting up a new venture, developing and growing an existing business, or designing an entrepreneurial organisation.’(Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, 2013:15).

Enterprise education includes such transferable skills as emotional and personal development, which are considered asthe building blocks for behavioural development within entrepreneurial contexts (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008). Furthermore GEM(Global Entrepreneurship Monitor special edition, 2010) suggests that enterprise education should be all embracing,providing graduates with the transferable skills that enhance employability opportunities. Martinez et al. (2010), the authorsof GEM, emphasise the need to embed enterprise educationwithin the HE curriculum and highlight the enormity of this task.The report stresses the need for enterprise education to be delivered bymulti-disciplinary academics capable of cutting acrossdiscipline divides and silo mentalities: challenging traditional pedagogies and behaviours. The report notes that this view isgenerally well established and accepted amongst experts, however, questions are raised with regard to quality, design andnature of such education. The programmes that form the basis of this research paper comply with the Global Entrepre-neurship Monitor (GEM) ethos that enterprise education should be open to all and cut across discipline boundaries.

2.2. Institutional response

Increasingly HE institutions are being asked to respond to the socio-economic demands of their ‘paymasters’ and‘stakeholders’, in short they must be more responsive to the professional, vocational and employability needs of theirgraduates (Billett, 2009; IfM and IBM, 2008). The research uponwhich this paper is based addresses the question, how shouldHE respond, institutionally, to this skill orientated employability agenda, whist ensuring sustainable service offering? It doesso, based upon a detailed enterprise programme audit, a transferable skills framework, in so doing, it recognises and

e cite this article in press as: Smith, A. M. J., & Paton, R. A., Embedding enterprise education: A service based transferableframework, The International Journal of Management Education (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.02.002

A.M.J. Smith, R.A. Paton / The International Journal of Management Education xxx (2014) 1e11 3

addresses broader policy and institutional debates. In short, it maps out a skills set for the 21st century graduate; a mappingexercise enables variables to be identified and when correctly configured provides a framework capable of being appliedacross multiple contexts.

The structure adopted first addresses the topography of transferable skills provision. The aforementioned sets the scenefor the methodology sectionwhich follows. The findings and subsequent discussion lead on to the conclusions section, whichencourages HE and associated stakeholders to consider the efficacy, in terms of sustainability, and effectiveness, in terms ofdelivering the 21st century graduate.

3. The topography of transferable skills provision

Enterprise education adopted here as the appropriate term to include transferable skills provision, is varied in terms ofcurriculum content, delivery modes and intended outcomes (Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, 2013). Thiscomplex topography is the starting point for a review of the relevant issues, developments and direction associated withdelivering the 21st century graduate. Enterprise education may deliver knowledge and a theoretical understanding, but howdoes it engage with practice? Can this engagement be sustained? Lastly, what may the future hold in terms of industrydemands? The aim of this section is to provide a degree of clarity to the context and assist in shaping the research intent.

3.1. Enterprise education and programmes

Enterprise education cuts across traditional academic boundaries, undergraduates to doctoral students, from the arts tothe sciences, it embraces multiple disciplines and media in its delivery. Pittaway and Cope (2007a), based upon a systemicliterature review, stress the sheer magnitude of the diversity and scale of provision. There have been several UK initiativesdesigned to ascertain the nature of the offering, its impact and determine best practice. One such study, NCGE and ISBE (2010)confirms the scale and diversity of provision, but also recognised the immensity of the task facing researchers and stake-holders wishing to establish best practice and impact. In particular, they noted the transient and faddish nature of theprovision, they called for further research to identify and better understand the sustainability dimension. This call echoes thatof Pittaway and Cope (2007a) who expressed the need for a better understanding of the sustainability dimension.

The focus of many enterprise programmes is the creation of a business plan/venture (Rae, 2009; Solomon, 2007). Pro-grammes designed with applied learning outcomes in mind often focus upon technical skills, such as business planning andmanagement (Fisher, Graham, & Compeau, 2008), whilst others broaden this agenda to more directly address personaldevelopment and entrepreneurial intent: essentially the design and pedagogy are created and delivered with both aims inmind (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008). Entrepreneurial intent is the thinking space occupied by nascent entrepreneurs prior toentrepreneurial action, whilst entrepreneurial capability (Lewis, 2010) is the more competence based know-how, whencombined they should form a coherent narrative: an intelligence that will seek out opportunity and be enterprising. However,providing the skills set and promoting intent does not necessarily translate to entrepreneurial action.

3.2. Engagement with practice

Within the literature relating to ‘learning’ in entrepreneurial contexts, it is widely agreed that experiential learningprovides a useful pedagogy (Cooper & Lucas, 2007; Cope & Watts, 2000; Fisher et al., 2008; Grisoni, 2002; Harrison & Leitch,2008; Jack & Anderson, 1999; Pittaway & Cope, 2007b; Rae, 2000, 2009; Rae & Carswell, 2000; Smith & Paton, 2010, 2011).Subsequently, experiential learning programmes encourage action, not simply entrepreneurial intent. Recent examples ofaction and impact driven programmes would include: Scottish Enterprise’s, Encouraging Dynamic and Global Entrepreneurs(EDGE) initiative, with its origins in Columbia University (Pratt & Pratt, 2010; Smith & Paton, 2011); Nicent, University ofUlster in partnership with Queen’s University Belfast (Hegarty & Jones, 2008); and SPEED, a programme delivered in 13 UKhigher education institutions and funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Rae, 2009). Notable featuresof such programmes are the partnerships, which often produce complex and conflicting stakeholder relationships, that arefostered between HE, industry and government agencies (Matlay, 2010; Pickernell, Packham, Jones, Miller, & Thomas, 2011).

In response to industry demands for new thinking, Neck and Greene (2011) argue that a novel way of looking at ‘entre-preneurship education’ would be to focus on method. The method approach avoids process-based teaching and encouragesdoing then learning; principles associated with reflective and experiential learning (Kolb, 1984; Nikolou-Walker & Garnet,2004; Raelin, 1999). Neck and Greene (2011) argue that this is in fact a portfolio or toolkit approach, which with partnershipthe appropriate provision can be developed to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. Further insights by Sarasvathy andVenkataraman (2011) suggest the method approach is about enterprise, not as a phenomenon but as a generic way ofseeing, doing and being. Such thinking places enterprise education at the very heart of society and social learning (Vygotsky,1978).

3.3. Sustainable provision

Rae (2009) discusses the case of SPEED, an action learning initiative with multiple partners and stakeholders. Rae notesthat its design was shaped by the funding mechanism and that this then dictated timescales and how success would be

Please cite this article in press as: Smith, A. M. J., & Paton, R. A., Embedding enterprise education: A service based transferableskills framework, The International Journal of Management Education (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.02.002


measured. High profile, initiatives such as EDGE and SPEED, will always be at the mercy of the policy makers as they areembedded within local, regional and national enterprise and growth agendas, which are in turn ‘politically’ inspired andsubject to policy review. This phenomenon is not unique to the UK; Finkle, Kuratko, and Goldsby (2006) examined entre-preneurship centres in the United States and also noted that design and sustainability were dependent upon externalresource dependency. Enterprise education has traditionally been associatedwith external funding and policy initiatives, Katz(2003) sensed a maturing of this approach, however, Kuratko (2005) questioned wither or not the discipline has reached amore embedded and sustainable plateau. With NCGE and ISBE (2010) calling for a more strategic approach to enterpriseeducation; Pittaway and Cope (2007a) point to the need to provide tangible and sustainable stakeholder benefits (echoing asimilar call from Gibb (2002)); it would be reasonable to assume enterprise education continues to ‘suffer’ from externalinterventions, policy fluctuations and spasmodic funding.

Embedding enterprise education within the HE curriculum (Martinez et al., 2010) produces a fusion of doing and seeing(Sarasvathy & Venkataraman, 2011) and social learning (Bandura, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978). It follows that by its very nature, anembedded approach to transferable skills development is less easily measured, in terms of commercial or innovative impact,than programme led initiatives. The latter are designed to produce specific economic returns. The public purse has investedand therefore it must seek an economic justification. The former, delivered in parallel with a student’s core and peripherycurricula, is far more difficult to assess for economic impact and tends to be assessed, often within the confines of the HEestablishment, by means of skills acquisition and deployment. Nonetheless, solutions to transparent measurement ofembedded skills are necessary in order to substantiate the employability and enterprise service offering to both industry(users) and to funding stakeholders (World Economic Forum, 2009).

3.4. The industry challenge

Encouragingly industry is reengaging with the enterprise education debate and is adopting a leadership stance (SaltireFoundation, 2010). The IfM and IBM report (2008) highlights key transferable skills associated with tomorrows graduate,calling for HE to produce T shaped graduates or adaptive innovators; well versed in their core discipline but crucially capableof thinking and acting across disciplines/silos. The call is for graduates who can lead and contribute to a service dominantsocio-economic environment (Paton & McLaughlin, 2008); engage across disciplines and functions, reflect on best practice,and manage complexity and change (Knight & Yorke, 2003; Matlay, 2010; Pickernell et al., 2011; Pittaway, Rodriguez-Falcon,Aiyegbayo, & King, 2011). The industry consortia’s ultimate aim appears to be the shaping and creation of the 21st CenturyGraduate. These employability skills are embraced through transferable skills within enterprise education and according toPittaway and Cope (2007a), require further study to ensure that they are delivered efficiently and effectively.

In summary, flagship enterprise programmes are generally led, or at least shaped, by influential stakeholders, whichimpacts upon their sustainability. High cost, policy led initiatives tend to be transient, but they can act as a catalyst, fosteringmore embedded and sustainable spin-off initiatives. Policy and funding led programmes can act as catalysts for less ambitiousventures (Rae, 2009; Smith & Paton, 2011). Fortunately, there are alternatives to policy driven ventures; indeed, if there werenot such alternatives, enterprise education would be at best transient and deliver only sporadic impact. Policy driven ini-tiatives and associated funding have a role to play but cannot in themselves deliver systematic, universal and beneficialenterprise education (Fayolle & Kyro, 2008). Embedded funding, driven by student fee income, provide year on year benefits,integrating enterprise within the curriculum. This paper argues, in line with Neck and Greene (2011) that sustainable en-terprise education is derived from integrating transferable skills within the curriculum, providing ongoing, rather thansporadic, emersion in the subject. Finally, where impact is measured through reflective practice and experiential method-ologies, it is critical that the imparted skills are fit for purpose. To this end the research intent is to develop a frameworkwhosearchitecture is tangible and measurable, but also sufficiently organic to facilitate contextualisation and method developmentacross HE curricula.

4. Methodology

It has been widely observed that programme content, while of obvious concern, is not the only determinant of success asthere are other factors at play, for example learning styles and sustainability. To enhance their empirical understanding for thesubject and associated issues the authors identified four enterprise programmes. These programmes, one of which wascreated by an international partnership, were all delivered by one HEI in the United Kingdom dedicated to teaching,knowledge transfer and an engagement with practice. As such they were designed, delivered and assessed by academics wellqualified in their field and supported by an institution that shared the programme values. In addition, they were all conceivedas answers to the Scottish government and associated agencies desire to encourage enterprise, business start-ups and eco-nomic growth. Further, through institutional and research networks the authors had ready access to the relevant data sets.The data sets could be linked to programmes, all of which had been deemed a success by the associated stakeholders, plusthey had been, as had the programmes themselves, subject to end-to-end quality enhancement and assurance, in line withthe UK Quality Assurance Authority (QAA).

The research intent being to audit, via programme specific (content, style and skills set) analysis, the embedded trans-ferable skills and to then create a skills framework. Essentially, programme documentation, all compliant with institutionaland QAA requirements, would be used to determine the intended transferable skills associated with each programme. Each


Table 1Programme audit.

Programme Life cycle Mode ofattendance

Student group Design Cohort Industryinteraction

External funders/stakeholders

Aims

(P1) 2000/03 Fulltimeone year

Post doctoralstudents

Work basedlearning; prestart up activity

36 LINC, ScottishEntrepreneurs

Scottish Enterprise,Royal Society ofEdinburgh PPARC

Attain skills andexpertise todevelop theirbusinessesthrough workbased learning

(P2) 2000/03 Part timeup to5 years

SME businessownermanagers

Work basedlearning;existing businessactivity

45 Scottish SME’sandpeer group

European Social Fundpart funded

Attain skills andexpertise todevelop theirbusinessesthrough workbased learning

(P3) 2006/09 Full timesummerschool8 weeks

Internationalanddomesticstudents.Undergraduatelevel1e4 and S5and S6

Experientiallearningdesigns withtechnologicalconnectivity

550 Scottish SME’s Scottish EnterpriseUniversity of Warsaw,Columbia University,Simon Fraser Waterloo,Toronto etcCareers Scotland,Global ScotsERDF

Offer students amulti culturalentrepreneurshipexperience andimprove economicwealth amongScottish SME’s

(P4) 1995/00 Fulltimeone year

Postgraduateunemployedstudents

Modularknowledge baseddelivery withexperientiallearning

130 An AssociateTeachingFaculty initiativeinvolvingentrepreneurs

Scottish EnterpriseEuropean Social Fund,The EntrepreneurialExchange

Prepare studentsfor newventure creation


programme skills set would then be analysed to produce an overarching framework. The authors recognised that they wouldnot, given the retrospective nature of the research, have direct access to the participating student body nor any employerorganisations. However, they had documentary and observational data that testified to stakeholder satisfaction, for example,externally independently audited programme evaluations, student feedback, employer testimony and assessed studentprojects/presentations.

4.1. The research context

The research context was dynamic and the associated data sets both complex and extensive; it was decided to approachthe task by adopting a content analysis, as it facilitates sense making from complex data sets and environments. Encour-agingly, Baden, Harwood, and Woodward (2011) had recently adopted the methodology to ‘make sense’ of rich and complexdata emerging from a major SME study. Baden et al. adopted an inductive coding process that produced themes/categories.They were able to increase their inter and intra coder reliability through frequent round table stakeholder discussions. Incontrast Barringer, Jones, and Neubaum (2005), also working with text and narratives, employed the statistics softwareprogram ATLAS/ti to achieve similar goals, but also felt the need to use human interpretation to test the coding process andoutcomes. Morris, Lewis, and Sexton (1994) used content analysis to critically examine entrepreneurship journals and texts: akeyword content analysis was adopted. The keyword content analysis approach appears to match well the requirements ofthis study, as it permits the analysis of large swathes of documentary evidence. However, Morris et al. (1994) do not detailtheir coding or categorisation process and so the process of coding will follow techniques adopted by Baden et al. (2011).

4.2. Content analysis

Content analysis offers several approaches to the organisation and management of data and as such is suited to thepurpose and aim of this study: mapping features and skills of enterprise programmes. Clearly different approaches to processare considered valid either through software or emergent practices; frequencies of terms and or emergent patterns andclusters. The following paragraphs describe the application of content analysis.

In the first instance, as noted previously, four programmes were identified: MSc New Venture Creation, MSc BusinessDevelopment, MSc Entrepreneurial Studies and EDGE (Encouraging Dynamic and Global Entrepreneurs). In addition, to thepreviously noted selection criteria, however, the fixed organisational and operational setting, plus the relative longevity ofeach programme, afforded the researchers a degree of confidence in the robustness of the data sets and the consistency ofoperational environment:

� (P1) Programme 1, 2000/3 MSc New Venture Creation� (P2) Programme 2, 2000/3 MSc Business Development



� (P3) Programme 3, 2006/9 Encouraging Dynamic and Global Entrepreneurs� (P4) Programme 4, 1995/2000 MSc Entrepreneurial Studies

The content analysis process involved three distinct phases, the first the detailed review of quality assurance relateddocumentation. This review resulted in the following sub units of analysis being identified: Purpose and aims, learningdesigns, transferable skills and target market. The next phase involved the production of a unit of analysis map based on adetailed review of programme documentation, Table 1 presents an all programme summary. The third phase saw thekeyword coding being applied to the documentation, extensive work went into the identification, codification and catego-risation of programme/module specific transferable skills.

The enormity and complexity of the coding process is illustrated by the fact that 147 transferable skill keywords requiredcoding and thenwere themed across 15 categories. Each themewas given a code involving two letters, the first represented acommon core skill and the second the wider theme, for example the transferable skill of Information Retrieval was coded IR, Irepresenting a core theme of Information and R the sub theme of retrieval. Sub themeswere identified by a frequency of usagecount within each module/programme. The coding process, by clustering the sub themes around a common/connectedmeaning, enabled four core themes to emerge, information, self, communication and collaboration. These core themes werere-named core T (transferable) skills reflecting a framework of core transferable skills. This process was repeated for all fourprogrammes and recorded results are contained in Table 2. Essentially, this was an inductive process, which involved dis-cussion, and ongoing word connection based upon meaning and implication, such an approach is recognised as standardpractice (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

5. Findings and discussion

The findings and discussion are presented in two sections the first deals with the programmes and introduced contextualinput to openly encourage consideration of sustainability issues, which answers the call for further research into this issue(NCGE and ISBE, 2010). The study results are presented in a tabular format, Table 1 illustrates the mapping exercise containingthe programme content analysis; this is then followed by a discussion on programme led approaches. The second sectionreports on the results from the transferable skills analysis and is represented in Table 2. The subsequent discussion deals withthe transferable skills framework.

5.1. Programmes

5.1.1. Programme life cyclesThe life cycles ranged from 3 to 5 years, therefore each would have been through a minimum of two annual quality

assurance and enhancement evaluations. Programme design and development obviously occurs over time, similar in fact to

Table 2Analysis of transferable skills in programmes (P1eP4).

Transferable skillsSub themes

Codes Core T skills P1 P2 P3 P4 Total

n¼ n¼ n¼ n¼ n¼Analytical IA Information 4 5 1 0 10Retrieval IR Information 1 2 1 0 4Evaluative IE Information 12 11 0 4 27Knowledge IK Information 3 4 2 0 9

20 22 4 4 50 50 50

Creativity SC Self 3 7 0 5 15Decisions SD Self 4 5 1 3 13Awareness SA Self 1 4 2 2 9Negotiation SN Self 1 0 0 0 1Intellectual SI Self 1 0 4 3 8

10 16 7 13 46 46 46

Oral CO Communication 2 5 0 0 7Written CW Communication 3 3 0 0 6connect CC Communication 5 4 0 4 13

10 12 0 4 26 26 26

People BP Collaboration 1 4 2 7 14Management BM Collaboration 0 5 2 0 7Projects BR Collaboration 0 0 0 4 4

1 9 4 11 25 25 25

n ¼ 147



product life cycles, with stakeholder input one would expect some form of continuous improvement to be at play (Leitch &Harrison, 1999) Documentary analysis, testifies to ongoing review and refinement, by avoiding the ‘stop’ and ‘go’ scenario,disjointed efforts and under utilised resources appear to have been avoided, indeed the emphasis appears to be efficienciesand value dissemination.

5.1.2. StakeholdersThe European Social Fund funded programmes 2 and 4. In the case of P2, two cohorts were funded and in the case of P4, 4

cohorts were funded and 1 was HE funded. In the case of P3 the funding cycle, as well as policy reform, resulted in closure.Programme 1 was fully funded. P2 and P3 were subject to independent reviews, commissioned by the funding bodies andalthough both reviews were positive, this was not enough to secure ongoing funding. Even with favourable reviews andaudited positive impact, stakeholders may still withdraw funding.

5.1.3. ContextualisationEnterprise education by its very nature encompasses industry and business led transferable skills development. This being

the case, enterprise education and its pedagogical underpinnings can be a source of ‘good practice’ for other disciplines. It ispossible through contextualisation for enterprise to be effectively written into a wider curriculum. There was clear evidencethat ‘good practice’ was not only being spread within the core stakeholder grouping, it was disseminating to a much largeraudience. High visibility enterprise programmes, such as P3, EDGE, as we have previously noted, can act as a catalyst forcurriculum growth and development. EDGE acted as a testing bed, an experimental laboratory, for transferable skillsdevelopment.

In summary, stakeholder and resource dependencies associatedwith programme led initiatives are ultimately too disruptivefor the HE context within which they are delivered. What is meant by the term disruptive? Such programmes are dependentupon non-recurring funding, they bring in to the academic arena new players with differing agendas, they also pull staff awayfrom their mainstream activities and cause disruption. Initially they are hailed as innovative, exciting and worthy of praise, butas the ‘shine’ fades and they are slowly institutionalised, interest evaporates. In fact, they appear to actually undermine en-terprise education across the institution by creating an elite, resource intensive and highly visible delivery mode. Flagshipprogrammes may provide an innovative platform for encouraging interest and innovationwithin enterprise education, they donot appear to lead to an embedded, sustainable and nurturing enterprise ethos and practice across the HE.

5.2. Transferable skills

This section focuses on the content analysis of transferable skills in the enterprise modules drawn from the programmesample, with a view to revealing core transferable skills that might be built into a service based skills development process forthe wider curriculum, possibly defining a skills framework for the 21st century graduate. The content analysis specificallyrelating to transferable skills revealed n ¼ 147 across the four programmes. From this data set, based on clustering andinterpretation, themes were identified that led to framework of core transferable skills or core ‘T’ skills (Table 2).

The analysis of transferable skills resulted in an identification and expression of specific core T skills; information usage,self, communication and collaboration. The results suggest, firstly, that this is a framework of core T skills sufficiently genericto be applicable across programmes, curriculum and service contexts and secondly, that an understanding of these core Tskills might be underpinned by key areas of entrepreneurship theory and societal thinking. These suggestions are discussedfurther by unpicking each core T. In the following paragraphs we aim to contribute to the debate on transferable skills and thefuture ‘T’ shaped graduate from an enterprise perspective (IfM and IBM Report, 2008).

5.2.1. Information usageInformation usagewasmost frequently measured as a transferable skill across themodules. Coding identified four types of

information usage themes; analytical, retrieval, evaluative and knowledge. From a pedagogical perspective, this data serves toinform the design of learning opportunities and in doing so reflects the fact that enterprising graduates need to be capable ofexploiting the opportunities information avails to them (Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray, 2003; Baron, 2006; Bhowmick, 2007;Bryant, 2007).

5.2.2. SelfThe learner as ‘self’ is a notion that unlocks the true potential of education, no matter the discipline: interaction with en-

vironments, values, beliefs, sense making and relationships (Bandura, 1977; Cox, 2005). The notion of self is expressed inentrepreneurship education through entrepreneurial intent and self-efficacy, both contributing towards ‘being’ an independentlearner. Self captures, to a certain extent, the cognitive processes; contextual and learned behaviours crossing the spectrum oftheory that supports the wider understanding of ‘being’ an entrepreneur, leader or manager (Cooper & Lucas, 2007; Gartner,1988; Levie & Lichtenstein, 2010; Lucas, Cooper, Ward, & Cave, 2009; Mitchell & Shepherd, 2010; Timmons, 1994).

5.2.3. CommunicationIn the modules analysed, communication is a widely utilised term and three related themes were identified; oral, written

and connect. All modes of communication matter in business and industry, especially when presenting, convincing and



leading (Bhave, 1994; Blundel, 2002): the T shaped graduate must be a communicator. However, what is notable is that thiscore T skill has a lesser frequency count than the preceding skills. A review of communication skills in enterprise andentrepreneurship education may offer fruitful insights. Not only do employers want students who canwrite effective reports,they need employees who can sell, form and exploit relationships.

5.2.4. CollaborationThe 21st century student is a collaborative and socially connected individual (Beldarrain, 2006). Notably, collaboration

featured the lowest count of all the core T skills in the study n¼ 25, suggesting that programmes in the sample validated priorto the millennium reflect a less technologically collaborative society. Nonetheless, entrepreneurs have always collaboratedand interacted in order to do business, collaboration should be considered as a critical enterprise skill (Bhave,1994). In light ofthe future teaching and learning landscape and of the T shaped graduate it will be necessary to ensure this skill is embeddedwithin enterprise programmes and the wider curriculum (IfM and IBM, 2008). Collaborative skills include project manage-ment, teamwork and cooperative contributions to group activity. Finally, newways of teaching in collective and collaborativeways should be explored in order to fully shape this transferable skill (Beldarrain, 2006; Smith, Halcro, & Chalmers, 2010).

5.3. The transferable skills framework

The framework, as illustrated in Fig. 1, may be considered as a socio economic construction of thework ready 21st centurygraduate. This is achieved through an architecture that consists of four core T skills that could, for example, be embedded intoa medical, business or engineering programme of study. Pedagogy built around the core T skills and incorporating the fifteensub themes would seek to support development of individual competency and knowledge.

The framework, given its systematic and integrative development, contributes in a positive fashion to educational designand learning. The distinction between learning and education being that the framework provides architecture for educationalsystems that can support and shape learning; entrepreneurial, situational, experiential or societal. This distinction isimportant particularly in relation to existing literature. The authors approach is to suggest that learning can be shapedthrough pedagogy designed for a wide breadth of HE contexts and disciplines. Pedagogy can be developed from theframework by embedding core T skills and utilising the fifteen sub themes thus nurturing knowledge into competency.Equally the framework can be utilised in reverse, by analysing socio economic experiences using reflective practice, thustranslating competency into knowledge. The framework of enterprise skills approach is beneficial on two counts. Firstly, itprovides education that nurtures boundary crossing gradates, that requires learning methods that are likewise boundarycrossing, thus enabling the individual to contextualise. Secondly, this approach is replicable and offers a means of embeddingtransferable skills across an institution.

Fig. 1. The service based skills framework.



In summary, core skills have been identified through a content analysis of transferable skills in module and programmedocumentation. Revealed through a keyword content analysis, the effort has resulted in a reduction of a substantial body ofdata to what is essentially a framework of core transferable skills; information usage, self, communication and collaboration.Areas requiring immediate investigation are specifically communication and collaborative group effort. The authors considerthe core T skills to be sufficiently generic that they might be considered useful as a service based skills developmentframework, thus satisfying stakeholder requirements across the wider curriculum, the fifteen sub themes would provide anunderpinning foundation to ease the process of inclusion. The framework of enterprise skills is developed from enterpriseperspectives acknowledging gaps identified in past provision relating to communication and collaborative effort thus acontribution that provides an alternative approach to delivery across an institution. The theory and practice of the trans-ferable skills framework is a pedagogical framework that can be contextually implemented.

6. Conclusion

The paper aimed, in a systematic and integrative manner, to develop a framework of the core T skills associated with the21st century graduate, whilst considering the sustainability of programme delivery. By considering the topography of theskills, enterprise and stakeholder agendas, together with an extensive T skills audit, conclusions may be drawn regarding theefficacy of policy driven initiatives and the need to adopt a more holistic approach to transferable skills alluded to byMartinezet al. (2010) and Blenker et al. (2008). Undoubtedly it is the holistic approach that continues to challenge the HEI not just indefinition but also in implementation (Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, 2013).

Policy initiatives are here to stay, politicians and economic development agencies will continue to chase the latest fad,academics, particularly their employing institutions, will also continue, like moths to the flame, to be drawn to ‘lucrative’ andhigh profile socio-economic programmes. The four case programmes echo previous research findings. Faddish and transientpolicy led programmes may stimulate interest and indeed educational innovation, but they do not, in themselves, producesustainable delivery of transferable skills. This study reinforces concerns relating to the efficacy of an over reliance on policydriven and resource sensitive programmes, embedding transferable skills, across the graduating curriculum, is a more sus-tainable HE approach. As previously noted, this finding may be considered as a response to calls for further research into theenterprise and transferable skills sustainability debate.

Given that transferable skills provision is not the sole preserve of an all embracing enterprise educational offering, a T skillsframework must be both holistic and potentially subject content neutral. The programme audit, actually the power of asystematic content analysis driven methodology, produced a more holistic and integrated skills framework, one born out ofenterprise programmes, but capable of translation across the entire graduating curriculum. This framework in part addressesthe industry challenge, namely to produce 21st century graduates who are enterprising in thought and capable of workingacross contexts and disciplines (IfM and IBM report 2008). There are policy implications; specifically the proposed frameworkapproach to embedding enterprise education offers an institutional response to the employability agenda, it will rationaliseand build upon existing modular, elective or programme provision. As noted, enterprise education provision is often offeredas an option, elective or short life programme initiative, by adopting the skills framework approach, enterprise educationwillbecome embedded in a more sustainable manner across multiple contexts. Policy will influence how initiatives create ac-tivities which prepare students with transferable skills and the suggested framework of enterprise based transferable skillsoffers an alternative approach.

Nonetheless there are inevitably limitations, which are critical to fully understanding sustainability and contextualisationof transferable skills within differing learning environments (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Fayolle & Kyro, 2008; Pittaway et al.,2011). The study captured data from one institution, a comparative, cross institutional, research initiative would be bothwelcome and fruitful. Social constructions of each core T skill would deepen an understanding of ‘how’ to embed and even‘who’ should embed enterprise education within the curriculum.

References

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, T. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1),105e123.

Baden, D., Harwood, I. A., & Woodward, D. G. (2011). The effects of procurement policies on ‘downstream’ corporate social responsibility activity: content-analytic insights into the views and actions of SME owner-managers. International Small Business Journal, 29(3), 259e277.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: how entrepreneurs “connect the dots” to identify new business opportunities. Academy

of Management Perspective February, 104e119.Barringer, B. R., Jones, F. F., & Neubaum. (2005). A quantitative content analysis of the characteristics of rapid-growth firms and their founders. Journal of

Business Venturing, 20(5), 663e687.Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2),

139e153.Bhave, M. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(2), 223e242.Bhowmick, S. (2007). Opportunity creation as structuration: illustrations from three technology entrepreneurial initiatives. International Journal of Tech-

noentrepreneurship, 1(2), 129e145.Billett, S. (2009). Realising the educational worth of integrating work experiences in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(07), 827e843.Blenker, P., Dreisler, P., & Kjeldsen, J. (2008). A framework for developing entrepreneurship education in a university context. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 5(1), 45e63.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(14)00006-8/sref1



























Blundel, R. (2002). Network evolution and the growth of artisanal firms: a tale of two regional cheese makers. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,14(1), 1e30.

Bryant, P. (2007). Self-regulation and decision heuristics in entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and exploitation. Management Decision, 45(4), 732e748.CIHE/NCGE/NESTA. (2008). Developing entrepreneurial graduates: Putting entrepreneurship at the centre of higher education. London: The Council for Industry

and Higher Education, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship and National Endowment for Science Technology and Arts. Available at www.ncge.org.uk/publication/developing_entrepreneurial_graduates.pdf Accessed 03.05.11.

Cooper, S. Y., & Lucas, W. A. (2007). Building entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intent through education and experience. In Proceedings of the 30th ISBEInstitute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference, Glasgow, November.

Cope, J., & Watts, G. (2000). Learning by doing e an exploration of experience, critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning. InternationalJournal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 6(3), 104e124.

Cox, R. (2005). Adult learners learning from experience: using a reflective practice model to support work-based learning. Reflective Practice, 6(4), 459e472.Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. (2013). Enterprise education impact in higher education and further education. Final Report, June. London: BIS.

Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/208715/bis-13-904-enterprise-education-impact-in-higher-education-and-further-education.pdf Accessed 10.01.13.

European Commission. (2012). Effects and impacts of entrepreneurship programmes in higher education. Brussels, March http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/files/education/effects_impact_high_edu_final_report_en.pdf.

Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European IndustrialTraining, 32(7), 569e593.

Fayolle, A., & Kyro, P. (2008). The dynamics between entrepreneurship, environment and education, European research in education. Cheltenham, UK: EdwardElgar Publishing.

Finkle, T. A., Kuratko, D. F., & Goldsby, M. G. (2006). An examination of entrepreneurship centers in the United States: a national survey. Journal of SmallBusiness Management, 44(2), 184e206.

Fisher, S. L., Graham, M. E., & Compeau, M. (2008). Starting from scratch: understanding the learning outcomes of undergraduate entrepreneurship ed-ucation. In R. T. Harrison, & C. M. Leitch (Eds.), Entrepreneurial learning: Conceptual frameworks and applications (pp. 313e337). London: Routledge.

Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11e32.Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new enterprise and entrepreneurship paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and

new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 213e232.Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wledenfeld and Nicholson.Grisoni, L. (2002). Theory and practice in experiential learning in higher education. International Journal of Management Education, 2(2), 40e52.Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial learning: Conceptual frameworks and applications. London: Routledge.Hegarty, C., & Jones, C. (2008). Graduate entrepreneurship: more than child’s play. Education and Training, 50(7), 626e637.IfM and IBM. (2008). Succeeding through service innovation: A service perspective for education, research, business and government. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing. Available at www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ssme/ Accessed 02.01.12.Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (1999). Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture; producing reflective practitioners. International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 5(3), 110e125.Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876e1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283e

300.Knight, P., & Yorke, M. (2003). Assessment, Learning and Employability. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press: Maidenhead.Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice H-Hall.Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577e

598.Leitch, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (1999). A process model for entrepreneurship education and development. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour

and Research, 5(3), 83e109.Levie, J., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2010). A terminal assessment of stages theory: introducing a dynamic states approach to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 34(2), 317e350.Lewis, H. (2010). A model of entrepreneurial capability based on a holistic review of the literature from three academic domains. In Proceedings of the 33rd

ISBE Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference. London, November.Lucas, W. A., Cooper, S. Y., Ward, T., & Cave, F. (2009). Industry placement, authentic experience and the development of venturing and technology self-

efficacy. Technovation, 29(11), 738e752.Martinez, A. C., Levie, J., Kelley, D. J., Saemundsson, R. J., & Schott, T. (2010). The GEM special report on education and training: A global perspective on

entrepreneurship education and training. Report, GEM, March. Available at www.gemconsortium.org/default.aspx.Matlay, H. (2010). The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UK HEI’s. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and

Research, 17(2), 166e182.Mitchell, J. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010). To thine own self be true, images of opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1),

138e154.Morris, M. H., Lewis, P. S., & Sexton, D. L. (1994). Reconceptualising entrepreneurship: an inputeoutput perspective. SAM Advanced Management Journal,

59(1), 21e30.NCGE and ISBE. (2010). Enterprise and entrepreneurship in higher education; a report of the 2010 study. November. Available at www.ncge.org.uk/publication/

enterprise_and_entrepreneurship_in_higher_education_full.pdf Accessed 03.05.11.Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55e70.Nikolou-Walker, G., & Garnet, J. (2004). Work-based learning. A new imperative: developing reflective practice in professional life. Reflective Practice, 5(3),

197e312.Paton, R., & McLaughlin, S. (2008). Services innovation: knowledge transfer and the supply chain. European Management Journal, 26(2), 77e83.Pickernell, D., Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., & Thomas, B. (2011). Graduate entrepreneurs are different: they access more resources? International Journal

of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(2), 183e202.Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007a). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479e510.Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007b). Simulating experiential learning: integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning. Management Learning,

38(2), 211e233.Pittaway, L., Rodriguez-Falcon, E., Aiyegbayo, O., & King, A. (2011). The role of entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning. International

Small Business Journal, 29(1), 37e57.Pratt, C., & Pratt, J. (2010). New generations of global entrepreneurs: global citizenship through work-integrated learning in the new economy. Journal of

Cooperative Education and Internships, 42(2), 1e8.QAA. (2012). Enterprise and entrepreneurship education: Guidance for UK higher education providers. Available on line at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/

InformationAndGuidance/Documents/enterprise-guidance.pdf.Rae, D. (2000). Understanding entrepreneurial learning: a question of how? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 6(3), 145e159.Rae, D. (2009). Connecting entrepreneurial and action learning in student-initiated new business ventures: the case of SPEED. Action Learning: Research and

Practice, 6(3), 289e303.Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2000). Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial learning: the development of a conceptual model and its im-

plications in the design of learning experiences. Education and Training, 42(4/5), 220e228.







http://www.ncge.org.uk/publication/developing_entrepreneurial_graduates.pdf

http://www.ncge.org.uk/publication/developing_entrepreneurial_graduates.pdf









https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/208715/bis-13-904-enterprise-education-impact-in-higher-education-and-further-education.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/208715/bis-13-904-enterprise-education-impact-in-higher-education-and-further-education.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/files/education/effects_impact_high_edu_final_report_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/files/education/effects_impact_high_edu_final_report_en.pdf























http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ssme/






















http://www.gemconsortium.org/default.aspx











http://www.ncge.org.uk/publication/enterprise_and_entrepreneurship_in_higher_education_full.pdf

http://www.ncge.org.uk/publication/enterprise_and_entrepreneurship_in_higher_education_full.pdf






















http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/enterprise-guidance.pdf

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/enterprise-guidance.pdf










Raelin, J. A. (1999). The design of the action project in work-based learning. Human Resource Planning, 22(3), 12e28.Saltire Foundation. (2010). Saltire Foundation overview. Available at www.saltirefoundation.com Accessed 12.01.12.Sarasvathy, S. D., & Venkataraman, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship as method: open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship, Theory and

Practice, 35(1), 113e135.SHEEC. (2011). Developing and supporting the curriculum. Available at www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/enhancement-themes/developing-and-supporting-

the-curriculum Accessed 16.02.11.Smith, A. M. J., Halcro, K., & Chalmers, D. (2010). Using web 2.0 technology in entrepreneurship education: wikis as a tool for collaborative and collective

learning. International Journal of Innovation in Education, 1(2), 124e138.Smith, A. M. J., & Paton, R. (2010). An entrepreneurship toolkit for intensive skills development. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,

9(2), 162e176.Smith, A. M. J., & Paton, R. (2011). Delivering global enterprise: international and collaborative entrepreneurship in education. International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(1), 104e118.Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168e

182.Timmons, J. A. (1994). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century. Homewood: Irwin.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.),Mind in society the development of higher psychological processes. London,

England: Harvard University Press.World Economic Forum. (2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st

century. Report, World Economic Forum, Switzerland. Available at www.ncge.org.uk/publication/educating_the_next_wave_of_entrepreneurs.pdfAccessed 03.05.11.




http://www.saltirefoundation.com




http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/enhancement-themes/developing-and-supporting-the-curriculum

http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/enhancement-themes/developing-and-supporting-the-curriculum















http://www.ncge.org.uk/publication/educating_the_next_wave_of_entrepreneurs.pdf