Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century 9781783504978, 9781783504985

Citation preview

INNOVATIVE PATHWAYS FOR UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY

ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP, INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH Series Editors: Sherry Hoskinson and Donald F. Kuratko Recent Volumes: Volume 12:

Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth in the American Economy, Gary D. Libecap

Volume 13:

Entrepreneurial Inputs and Outcomes, Gary D. Libecap

Volume 14:

Issues in Entrepreneurship, Gary D. Libecap

Volume 15:

Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship, Gary D. Libecap

Volume 16:

University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer, Gary D. Libecap

Volume 17:

The Cyclic Nature of Innovation: Connecting Hard Sciences with Soft Values, Guus Berkhout, Patrick van der Duin, Dap Hartmann and Roland Ortt

Volume 18:

Technological Innovation: Generating Economic Results, Gary D. Libecap and Marie Thursby

Volume 19:

Measuring the Social Value of Innovation: A Link in the University Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, Gary D. Libecap

Volume 20:

Frontiers in Eco-Entrepreneurship Research, Gary D. Libecap

Volume 21:

Spanning Boundaries and Disciplines: University Technology Commercialization in the Idea Age, Gary D. Libecap, Marie Thursby and Sherry Hoskinson

Volume 22:

Entrepreneurship and Global Competitiveness: Determinants and Policy Implications, Gary D. Libecap and Sherry Hoskinson

Volume 23:

A Cross-Disciplinary Primer on the Meaning and Principles of Innovation, Matthew M. Mars and Sherry Hoskinson

ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP, INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH VOLUME 24

INNOVATIVE PATHWAYS FOR UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY EDITED BY

SHERRY HOSKINSON University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

DONALD F. KURATKO Kelley School of Business, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA

United Kingdom
North America
Japan India
Malaysia
China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2014 Copyright r 2014 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78350-498-5 ISSN: 1048-4736 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

vii

INTRODUCTION Sherry Hoskinson and Donald F. Kuratko

xi

BUILDING UNIVERSITY 21ST CENTURY ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS THAT EMPOWER AND TRANSFORM Michael H. Morris and Donald F. Kuratko

1

EXPLORING THE CONCEPT OF AN ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION ECOSYSTEM Candida G. Brush

25

ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES OF FUTURE ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION: AN ASSESSMENT OF TEXTBOOKS FOR TEACHING ENTREPRENEURSHIP Jack Mason and Ana Cristina O. Siqueira

41

DO UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS INFLUENCE STUDENTS’ ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOR? AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN SINGAPORE Yuen-Ping Ho, Pei-Chin Low and Poh-Kam Wong

65

THE INTERNAL PATHWAYS THAT CONDITION UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN LATIN AMERICA: AN INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH Maribel Guerrero, David Urbano and Eduardo Gajo´n

89

v

vi

CONTENTS

DISCERNING OPPORTUNITY TYPES: IMPLICATIONS FOR ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION Matthew Wood, Chris Welter, Kendall Artz and Steven W. Bradley

119

INNOVATING UNIVERSITY-BASED ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN ORDER TO INFORM INNOVATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Alex Bruton

145

ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN PRACTICE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HYBRID TRAINING MODEL IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT Arturo E. Osorio and Jasmine A. Cordero

171

EXTENDING THE LEGACY OF THE LAND GRANT INSTITUTION AS A SOCIAL INNOVATION: A NEW VISION FOR UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Matthew M. Mars

209

UNIVERSITY-WIDE ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION Natalie Antal, Bruce Kingma, Duncan Moore and Deborah Streeter

227

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Natalie Antal

Associate Director, Center for Entrepreneurship, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

Kendall Artz

Director of Baylor Entrepreneurship Program, Chairman of Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

Steven W. Bradley

Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

Candida G. Brush

Franklin W. Olin Distinguished Chair of Entrepreneurship, Chair
Entrepreneurship Division, Research Director
Arthur M. Blank Center, Babson College
Entrepreneurship Division, Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship, Babson College, MA, USA

Alex Bruton

Associate Professor, Bissett School of Business, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Jasmine A. Cordero

Managing Director of The Center for Urban Entrepreneurship & Economic Development, Department of Management & Global Business, Rutgers Business School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark-New Brunswick, NJ, USA vii

viii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Eduardo Gajo´n

School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Tecnolo´gico de Monterrey, Campus Laguna, Nuevo Leo´n, Mexico

Maribel Guerrero

Entrepreneurship Department, Orkestra
Basque Institute of Competitiveness, Deusto Business School, University of Deusto, Vizcaya, Spain

Yuen-Ping Ho

Associate Director
Research Program, NUS Entrepreneurship Centre, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Bruce Kingma

Professor, Whitman School of Management, iSchool, Syracuse University, New York, NY, USA

Donald F. Kuratko

The Jack M. Gill Distinguished Chair of Entrepreneurship, Professor for Entrepreneurship; Executive & Academic Director, Johnson Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation, The Kelley School of Business, Indiana University
Bloomington, IN, USA

Pei-Chin Low

Assistant Manager
Research Program, NUS Entrepreneurship Centre, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Matthew M. Mars

Assistant Vice President, Outreach College, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Jack Mason

Director of Entrepreneurial Studies, Palumbo Donahue School of Business, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Duncan Moore

Rudolf and Hilda Kingslake, Professor & Vice Provost for Entrepreneurship, Center for Entrepreneurship, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

ix

List of Contributors

Michael H. Morris

George and Lisa Etheridge Professor, Academic Director of Entrepreneurship Program, Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Arturo E. Osorio

Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship, Fellow at The Center for Urban Entrepreneurship & Economic Development, Department of Management & Global Business, Rutgers Business School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark-New Brunswick, NJ, USA

Ana Cristina O. Siqueira

Assistant Professor of Management, Palumbo Donahue School of Business, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Deborah Streeter

Bruce F. Failing, Sr. Professor of Personal Enterprise, Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

David Urbano

Business Economics Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Chris Welter

Assistant Professor, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA

Poh-Kam Wong

Director, NUS Entrepreneurship Centre, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Matthew Wood

Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

INTRODUCTION The complex global environment for entrepreneurship and innovation has experienced significant change during the past decade requiring a deeper understanding of economic, capital, technological, environmental, and social forces in order for this generation to realize sustained success. University-based entrepreneurship is at the nexus of this environment. Students of entrepreneurship and the faculty that are educating the innovation workforce are uniquely positioned as agents in the movement of discovery and innovation. This volume seeks to build a large body of scholarship specific to entrepreneurship education by providing the latest perspectives on how the entrepreneurship field of study looks forward to reshape and prepare tomorrow’s highly sophisticated entrepreneurial generations. Scholarly papers from research and teaching faculty in this volume examine some of the most current topics, perspectives, challenges, and visions in the area of entrepreneurship education. These chapters reflect the sense of urgency and commitment to respond to the call to lead the coming generations in entrepreneurial spirit and excellence. The first chapter of the volume, “Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs that Empower and Transform” is authored by Michael H. Morris and Donald F. Kuratko. In this chapter, the authors investigate the development of entrepreneurship programs in universities. More specifically they contend that programs should be created for empowerment and transformation across the campus. The authors describe some of the most common structural forms for programs, outline different degree programs, and emphasize the empowering and transforming effects of these programs for all the stakeholders of a university. The chapter provides a substantive framework for the volume overall and the specific programs and goals described in the subsequent chapters. In chapter two by Candida G. Brush, the author explores the concept of an entrepreneurship education ecosystem. Although the concept of ecosystem originates from the natural sciences, it is a concept that is increasingly applied to regional development
or clusters
which focus on firm inter-organizational relationships. In Brush’s chapter, she develops aspects of the domain and dimensions of university-based ecosystem relating to xi

xii

INTRODUCTION

entrepreneurship. A typology is presented that articulates roles that schools may pursue in developing their own internal entrepreneurship education ecosystem. Chapter three shifts to exploration of the current knowledge base through an assessment of textbooks for teaching entrepreneurship. In this chapter by Jack Mason and Ana Cristina O. Siqueira, the authors articulate the number of entrepreneurship textbooks that has multiplied given the increased interest in entrepreneurship programs in higher education. Mason and Sequeira provide an inventory of entrepreneurship textbooks, the topics they cover, and specify emerging topics that are not covered. This is done through their analysis of the content of 57 textbooks. Their study goes on to identify themes that future textbooks and research could target to address the needs of entrepreneurship education looking forward. In chapters four and five, author groups from National University of Singapore and from three Latin American institutions (ITESM, Mexico; UNICAMP, Brazil; and UPC, Chile) explore how institutional approaches and programs influence student and other community behaviors related to entrepreneurship. In the National University of Singapore paper, authors Yuen-Ping Ho, Pei-Chin Low, and Poh-Kam Wong provide an empirical study that introduces a more refined measure of entrepreneurial engagement combining entrepreneurship intention with actual steps taken to realize that intention. Using data from a survey of 836 students at the National University of Singapore (NUS), the study utilizes linear regression models to examine not only the direct effect of entrepreneurship education program participation on entrepreneurial engagement, but also its possible interaction effect with several psychological constructs drawn from the Theory of Planned Behavior. The Latin American group, Maribel Guerrero, David Urbano, and Eduardo Gajo´n present “The Internal Pathways That Condition University Entrepreneurship in Latin America: An Institutional Approach,” which explores how entrepreneurial university pathways (education and training) have had an impact on student start-up intentions and actions. Adopting the institutional economics approach, the team’s research proposes a conceptual model tested with a sample integrated with students enrolled in their universities. The study findings confirm the relevant effect of entrepreneurial university pathways on start-up creation. Chapter six, “Discerning Opportunity Types: Implications for Entrepreneurial Action and Entrepreneurship Education” by Matthew Wood, Chris Welter, Kendall Artz, and Steven W. Bradley, first introduces

Introduction

xiii

a matrix of opportunity types that delineates between the various combinations of means
ends conceptualizations. The authors then articulate each of the opportunity types as axioms that become the basis for the introduction of a theoretical model that identifies relationships between opportunity types and the actions entrepreneurs take as they pursue the opportunity. The net effect is an improved understanding of how variations in means
ends conceptualizations influence how entrepreneurs interpret their particular opportunity which in turn drives the actions they take as they attempt to turn their vision into reality. This improved understanding has important implications for entrepreneurship education because it suggests that the skills entrepreneurs require to be successful are partially a function of the type of opportunity being pursued. Chapter seven by Alex Bruton uses the discipline of Informing Science as a lens to carry out an analysis of the discipline of entrepreneurship. “Innovating University-Based Entrepreneurship in Order to Inform Innovation for the 21st Century” focuses first at the level of the entrepreneurship discipline itself, recently advanced frameworks for practice-asentrepreneurial-learning, and for the scholarship of teaching and learning for entrepreneurship (SoTLE), are all built upon using Gill’s work on academic informing systems to develop a framework that encourages viewing the entrepreneurship discipline as a system that informs entrepreneurial practice. Chapter eight shifts from specifically university-based programs to examine other teaching models to prepare first-time, early post-launch, and other nascent entrepreneurs in urban environments to inform teaching resource development. The authors, Arturo E. Osorio and Jasmine A. Cordero discuss their concept of “Hybrid Training Model in an Urban Environment.” Their program format allows for progressive learning while encouraging networking among participants. Using a case study, five years of data are presented describing this program and its value for its participants. Chapter nine revisits the concept of advancing technology transfer and university entrepreneurship by linking them more closely. In this paper, the author Matthew M. Mars draws significantly and interestingly on the history of the land grant movement and ultimately suggests stronger integration of social entrepreneurship as the means to positively affect technology transfer and ultimately use the university institution to improve social conditions. The paper raises important questions about the ability to broadly apply social entrepreneurship approaches, including classroom and applied, and identifies the need to continue the role of private capital in developing

xiv

INTRODUCTION

early stage university inventions, creating a balance of value creation and value capture. In the final chapter, authors Natalie Antal, Bruce Kingma, Duncan Moore, and Deborah Streeter provide a retrospective view of the development of a radiant model of university wide entrepreneurship as deployed in three U.S. universities: Cornell University, University of Rochester, and Syracuse University. The authors examine the history, accelerants, and challenges of the radiant model, of which each of the three universities pursued variations and from which universities today can draw important lessons and advantages. In this volume, the first in affiliation with the Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers (GCEC), our authors have drawn on historical development of education broadly, and on a discipline-specific basis. Perspective on the positioning curriculum and on understanding the influence and implications of programs on the entrepreneurial learner and researcher are explored. As is consistent with the mission of the Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers, country-specific views have been blended to create broader global awareness of university entrepreneurship. For colleagues that represent virtually every field of study in the university, this collection represents an important and unique insight on the future of entrepreneurship education. The work of this volume will advise and initiate new discussions, from which new volumes will be developed. Importantly, the designation of a series to draw annually on the scholarly insight of the world’s entrepreneurship education leaders provides a venue to bring developing and leading ideas to further develop this important field of study. Sherry Hoskinson Donald F. Kuratko Editors

BUILDING UNIVERSITY 21ST CENTURY ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS THAT EMPOWER AND TRANSFORM Michael H. Morris and Donald F. Kuratko ABSTRACT At its essence, entrepreneurship has the potential to empower and to transform. The key to both individual and organizational prosperity in a dynamic, threatening and complex world is the ability to think and act in more entrepreneurial ways. A new wave of economic development is sweeping the world, with entrepreneurship and innovation as the primary catalysts. Within the world of education, it can be argued that the at-risk student is the one not prepared for this entrepreneurial age. While every student has the potential, most lack the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and capabilities that define entrepreneurial competence. Over these past four decades, entrepreneurship has grown within universities faster than virtually any other area of intellectual pursuit. And it appears that the pace is accelerating with more universities seeking to develop programs

Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, Volume 24, 1
24 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1048-4736/doi:10.1108/S1048-473620140000024001

1

2

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

and centers focused on entrepreneurship. Yet, understanding how to build entrepreneurship programs that empower and transform has remained challenging for some institutions. In this chapter, we investigate the development of entrepreneurship programs in universities. More specifically we contend that they should be created for empowerment and transformation across the campus. We describe some of the most common structural forms, outline the different degree programs, and emphasize the empowering and transforming effects of these programs for all the stakeholders of a university. Keywords: Entrepreneurship education; empowerment; transformation; academic programs; entrepreneurship centers; university entrepreneurship Empowerment: “The process of increasing the capacity of individuals or groups to make choices and to transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes” Transformation: “An underlying change in the appearance, character, form or structure of someone or something”

INTRODUCTION Entrepreneurship represents a powerful mindset that will be a defining element of the 21st century. At its essence, entrepreneurship has the potential to empower and to transform. The key to both individual and organizational prosperity in a dynamic, threatening, and complex world is the ability to think and act in more entrepreneurial ways. A new wave of economic development is sweeping the world, with entrepreneurship and innovation as the primary catalysts. The entrepreneurial mindset enables individuals to seek opportunities, take risks beyond security, tolerate failure, creatively leverage resources, and overcome obstacles to push an idea to implementation. Importantly, the entrepreneurial mindset is something that can be developed in individuals inside or outside an organization, within start-up or large firms, in profit or not-for-profit enterprises, and in business or nonbusiness activities. Thus, the entrepreneurial mindset represents a guiding light and motivating force for individuals and organizations as they attempt to find and sustain advantage in a complex and chaotic age (Kuratko, 2009). Within the world of education, it can be argued that the at-risk student is the one not prepared for this entrepreneurial age. A constantly changing

Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs

3

environment provides a continuous flow of potential opportunities if an individual can recognize and act upon high potential ideas amid the chaos and cynicism that also permeates such an environment. While every student has the potential, most lack the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and capabilities that define entrepreneurial competence. As individuals seek to develop the capacity for entrepreneurial thinking, greater expectations are placed on universities to build high-impact entrepreneurship programs. Unfortunately, even as the world overtly turns to entrepreneurship as a force for commercial and social innovation, wealth creation, job generation, and economic growth, universities have failed to keep up. They have often lagged in meeting societal demands for better prepared students and a richer knowledge base. They have been slow to develop the kinds of degree programs, curricula, and research agendas that enable more entrepreneurial individuals and organizations. Entrepreneurship education has been the subject of numerous studies over the past twenty-five years (e.g., Brush et al., 2003; Dickson, Solomon, & Weaver, 2008; Gartner & Vesper, 1994; Katz, 2003, 2004, 2008; Kuratko, 2005; Solomon, 2007; Solomon, Duffy, & Tarabishy, 2002; Solomon & Fernald, 1991; Solomon, Weaver, & Fernald, 1994; Vesper & Gartner, 1997, 1999). While they note a variety of obstacles and challenges, these studies document a remarkable rate of growth and development in the curricula and related campus-based programs devoted to entrepreneurship and new venture creation. The number of colleges and universities offering courses related to entrepreneurship has grown from a handful in the 1970s to thousands across the globe today (Kuratko, 2014). Large numbers of universities now offer majors, minors, concentrations, certificates, and master’s degrees in entrepreneurship. Some of the more prestigious research universities have developed Ph.D. programs to prepare the next generation of entrepreneurship scholars (Morris, Kuratko, & Cornwall, 2013). Over these past four decades, entrepreneurship has grown within universities faster than virtually any other area of intellectual pursuit. And it appears that the pace is accelerating with more universities seeking to develop programs and centers focused on entrepreneurship. Importantly, these efforts have begun to extend beyond their traditional base within business schools and to reach faculty, students and administrators across the university campus. Kuratko (2005) notes, “Entrepreneurship is new and it is about continual innovation and creativity. It is the future of business schools and it should begin to move into a leadership role” (p. 591). Entrepreneurship programs have indeed risen to a position of greater prominence and stronger influence within universities and schools of business.

4

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

Yet, understanding how to build entrepreneurship programs that empower and transform has remained challenging for some institutions. In this chapter, we investigate the development of entrepreneurship programs in universities. More specifically we contend that they should be created for empowerment and transformation across the campus. We describe some of the most common structural forms, outline the different degree programs, and emphasize the empowering and transforming effects of these programs for all the stakeholders of a university.

STRUCTURING ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS Universities have structured their entrepreneurship-related efforts into programs, institutes, centers, departments, and schools (Solomon, 2007). In addition, we have seen the emergence of “cross campus” initiatives in entrepreneurship with unique structural approaches. Institutions must examine their commitment to entrepreneurship in order to determine not only the scope and substance of an entrepreneurship program, but also the program’s sustainability. Structure covers a wide range of organizational issues. Chief among these are the location of the entrepreneurship program, its leadership, its governance, and how its budget is controlled. Levels of autonomy and control are usually defined by where the program is located, most notably whether it is a stand-alone unit versus one positioned within an existing department or unit. The abilities to raise money and innovate are greater where there is a stand-alone unit, as is the speed with which new initiatives can be acted upon. This design consideration can also influence the ability to create a distinctive brand and identity for the program. (1) Academic Stature Scholarly credibility is enhanced when a program is housed in a unit that has academic standing, as opposed to one that is administrative in nature. Credibility is further affected by the extent to which those running the program have control over creation and management of degree programs and courses. For instance, some centers primarily control co-curricular programming and outreach, but not curriculum development. So the question becomes whether the program is predominately curricular in nature, with courses and degree programs

Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs

5

(i.e., minors, majors, concentrations in entrepreneurship), or is primarily focused on student-support initiatives (i.e., business plan competitions, incubators), or is concerned with community engagement. (2) Leadership Associated with structure is the manner in which the entrepreneurship program is led. Does the program have a terminally qualified, tenure track faculty member in a leadership position? Is the primary leader a clinical faculty member or an administrative staff member (e.g., a successful entrepreneurial alumnus of the school)? Both approaches can be successful, but experience has demonstrated that the long-term success and sustainability of the program requires a respected academic with solid scholarly credentials be in a leadership role. This type of background is critical for getting support from deans and departments to free up faculty to teach in the program, encourage their students to enroll in the program, and obtain support from myriad committees and gatekeepers for course and degree program approvals. Many schools have attempted to do both, with an academic director and programming director jointly running operations. (3) Governance Structural decisions also determine reporting relationships. A critical decision concerns whether to place the entrepreneurship program within or outside of the business school. Placing the program within the business school has many advantages, including access to faculty, financial resources, and a captive student audience. Yet, the extent to which faculty members and students from disciplines outside the business school identify and get involved with the program can be enhanced when it is positioned as a cross-campus initiative reporting to two or more deans or to a provost (or chief academic officer of the university). Separately, placing the program in the business school but within a center, an existing academic department, or a newly created academic unit can have different implications for reporting. Depending on the type of structure, then, those leading the entrepreneurship program find themselves reporting to a department head, an associate dean, one or more deans, or a provost. Also critical is the extent to which those involved with the program have budgetary control. The freedom to pursue sponsorships, endowments, operating gifts, and grants as well as the manner in which received monies are expended, and the extent to which monies remain within the program are impacted by the structural form. Further, the likelihood that the program receives an allocation from the business school or

6

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

university either as general support or as revenue from students enrolled in entrepreneurship courses will be enhanced where it is organized as a self-standing academic unit. With all of this in mind, let’s examine the five most prevalent structural forms used when organizing entrepreneurship efforts within universities (see Morris et al., 2013). General Entrepreneurship Programs The most rudimentary structure tends to be rather informal, where the university has a defined “entrepreneurship program,” but with no real academic or institutional home. A variation finds entrepreneurship positioned as a sub-field or specialty within an existing academic department, most often the Department of Management. There may be a formal program director, or the duties of coordination may be informally handled by one or more individuals having other primary duties at the university. While some programs may be the overall umbrella to a number of entrepreneurship courses and activities, other programs are smaller initiatives that schools use as an introductory vehicle for entrepreneurship education. So, the term “entrepreneurship program” has so many connotations that it is hard to generalize it into a specific structure. Suffice to say here that programs may be tailored to the individual needs and goals of the particular university and school and may be the result of a limited gift by an alum or supporter to extend entrepreneurship education reach but that falls short of funding a more structured program. Entrepreneurship Centers (or Institutes) University-based entrepreneurship centers have become the most common vehicle by which a range of programs and services that advance entrepreneurship and economic development are provided on the campus (Bowers, Bowers, & Ivan, 2006). While most commonly based in the business school, centers can be found in engineering and other schools, and sometimes report directly to a central administrator. Universities have differing procedures to create centers and a variation called an institute (which may be easier to form). In some cases, establishment of a center may require senior administration and board of regents’ approval, while in others a college dean is the final authority. Many of these are named after a significant

Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs

7

donor who provides an endowment to support center operations. This naming and endowment often precipitates the launch of the center, but schools will also set up a center and some initial programming and use this foundation to attract a donor and sell the naming rights. Regardless of the manner in which they are formed and named, much of the growth of entrepreneurship education and research at universities can be related to the existence of a university-based entrepreneurship center (Finkle, Kuratko, & Goldsby, 2006; Finkle, Menzies, Kuratko, & Goldsby, 2013). The center as a structural form tends to be the most effective vehicle for facilitating campus outreach and community engagement initiatives. Activities provided by an entrepreneurship center are valuable for nascent entrepreneurs as well as established entrepreneurs (Chrisman & Carsrud, 1991). For example, university-based training and consulting for family business owners is a common and valued part of the activities of many centers (Kaplan, George, & Rimler, 2000). Incubators, hatcheries, award programs, business plan competitions, training, consulting, facilitating access to funding and assisting with business plan preparation are just a few examples of how a university-based entrepreneurship center can play a central role in economic development. Mentoring programs can also be a feature of some centers and there is empirical evidence to suggest these programs are a factor in venture success (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000). Studies have demonstrated the popularity of the center structure, the curriculum that emanates from them, and the financial efforts that centers must engage in to survive and grow (Finkle et al., 2013). Unlike the school or department structure which works within the existing budget process for resources, centers have traditionally been funded through major endowments (from wealthy donors), grants from various agencies, or fund-raising activities. In this respect, the center structure offers greater autonomy from some of the bureaucratic policies of the institution yet it places greater pressure on the director to raise the operational and new initiative funding.

Departments of Management & Entrepreneurship A growing number of major universities have decided to adjust the title of an existing department to include the word “entrepreneurship.” The significance here is that long-standing, traditional units such as a Management Department recognize the critical importance (and distinctiveness) of entrepreneurial behavior to the point that they elevate its stature. By creating a Department of Management & Entrepreneurship they are able to utilize

8

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

current faculty and resources already dedicated to a standing department. This approach allows the entrepreneurship element to grow and expand from a curriculum standpoint and then, with effective enrollments, enlarge the faculty devoted to entrepreneurship. It is a more evolutionary approach and one that many major universities have found to be viable from a resource perspective. A few of the more successful examples include Indiana University, Baylor University, the University of Oklahoma, Texas Christian University, and the University of Colorado. Each of these schools has built a dedicated faculty for entrepreneurship and over the years some have expanded the entrepreneurship emphasis within the department to become the dominant discipline. Some of the advantages of this structure include: the ability to attract entrepreneurship faculty that might have cross-disciplinary interests; creation of courses within the existing department because resources already exist; easier access to existing departmental policies governing research resources; and greater “buy-in” by faculty outside of the entrepreneurship domain. It does appear that either separate departments or blends of existing departments are becoming a strong tendency among universities today. The advantages offered by such a structure as well as the constrained resources and faculty pressures faced by the senior administration may make this a growing trend in universities.

Departments of Entrepreneurship Another structural form involves creating an academic department dedicated exclusively to entrepreneurship and innovation. A number of European and U.S. universities have adopted this structure as a way to formalize their efforts in entrepreneurship and provide an academic “home” for the faculty and students in this area. The department approach takes a significant amount of commitment by faculty and administrators. This structural form allows a university to devote significant resources (in terms of faculty, curriculum, and research) to the entrepreneurship domain but within the context of a dedicated department, usually within the school of business. The department head and faculty are able to control curriculum, degree programs, hiring, graduate assistants, budgets. Experience suggests this type of form often produces greater depth and breadth to the academic aspects of the entrepreneurship program. Harvard University established a separate Entrepreneurial Management academic department that focuses on the process of entrepreneurship, the

Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs

9

finance of entrepreneurship, and the context of entrepreneurship. Using dedicated faculty to the different areas of entrepreneurship mentioned, they have been able to establish a sound curriculum at the MBA level. At Syracuse University, a Department of Entrepreneurship & Emerging Enterprises was created to segment the rapid growth in entrepreneurship from the more traditional departments in their Whitman School of Management. They have been able to build a faculty team, a solid record of scholarly research, and a comprehensive curriculum in entrepreneurship at the bachelors, masters, and doctoral levels. While these examples of a separate departmental approach demonstrate a distinct entity in entrepreneurship, a separate department also places a strong pressure on the university and school for support. Generally, this type of dedicated structure would need to be justified through large enrollments in courses at all levels.

Schools of Entrepreneurship A “school of entrepreneurship” takes the greatest amount of commitment by everyone involved. The concept behind establishing a school is to create a home for entrepreneurship that faculty and students from any discipline on campus can identify with. Senior administration and faculty must believe in the academic legitimacy of entrepreneurship as a distinct discipline, with implications for a wide range of other disciplines on the campus. It is a comprehensive effort that incorporates dedicated faculty to entrepreneurship, a full suite of dedicated courses in entrepreneurship at the undergraduate and graduate levels, degrees in entrepreneurship at all levels (BS, MBA, MSE, Ph.D.), scholarly research in entrepreneurship, curricular and research engagement with academic units across the campus, and a full range of experiential activities and programs. To date, only a handful of institutions have moved in the direction of creating a school of entrepreneurship. Oklahoma State University was one of the first major universities to commit fully to this path. They have a unique structure that includes both an academic School of Entrepreneurship and the Riata Center for Entrepreneurship (see Table 1). They work in tandem to create a unique curriculum, bring courses alive through experiential learning, help faculty and students start ventures, and engage the entrepreneurial community. Importantly, the structure has enabled the entrepreneurship program to successfully engage faculty and departments in every college on the campus, from the arts to engineering to agriculture, and to

10

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

touch over 2000 students a year with a message of entrepreneurial thinking and acting. Most universities are hesitant to develop this type of complete structure of a school at the outset because of the enormous amount of work and resources involved. It is usually the result of an evolutionary process from program to department to school. In that manner, the “school” gradually grows from each of the earlier stages into this comprehensive approach to entrepreneurship across the campus. As one can see from the example in Table 1, the commitment to a “school” approach is deep and can be expensive. That is why this structure is quite rare amidst the rapid growth of entrepreneurship programs.

Table 1.

The School of Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State.

The School of Entrepreneurship is housed within the Spears School of Business. Ten full-time faculty members oversee a forty-four course curriculum, with an undergraduate minor and major, Master’s of Science (live and online versions), MBA concentration, graduate certificate, and Ph.D. program. There is a strong commitment to hiring thought leaders as demonstrated in the faculty’s publications. The School has achieved a top ten ranking in terms of entrepreneurship research. The pedagogical approach centers on helping students recognize their entrepreneurial potential and improve on thirteen entrepreneurial competencies. The School also coordinates student advising and a graduate student incubator. The primary motivation for creating a school was to provide a home for students and faculty from any field of study interested in entrepreneurship. The School works proactively to integrate entrepreneurial concepts and ways of thinking into disciplines across the campus. The Riata Faculty Fellows Program allows faculty from any academic unit to work on projects (courses, research, outreach) connecting entrepreneurship to their home discipline, and to be jointly appointed for three years to the School. Over twenty unique initiatives have resulted. Cross-disciplinary collaboration is also achieved via a technology commercialization program, the Riata Scholars Program (graduate students from any discipline), the Creativity Institute, and a version of the minor in entrepreneurship for non-business majors. Advisory Board of Deans

Creativity Institute

Core Entrepreneurship Faculty

School of Entrepreneurship

Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Academy

Source: Adapted from Morris et al. (2013, p. 33).

External Advisory Board

Technology Entrepreneurship Initiative

Riata Entrepreneurship Center

Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs

11

The organizational structures used by universities to house and facilitate the development of entrepreneurship efforts differ considerably. Each form that we have presented has its share of advantages and disadvantages in terms of a range of evaluative criteria. A given institution must identify the vision and goals for their entrepreneurship initiative, create a strategic plan for that effort, and then select the structure that best enables the delivery of that plan. Resources, politics, student demand, administrative support, and external stakeholders are all factors that will come into play. Trade-off decisions are being made regarding autonomy, flexibility, control, potential for generating resources, the ability to innovate, and growth expectations. As a general rule, once in place, entrepreneurship programs tend to encounter a steady stream of new and exciting opportunities. Structure says a lot about the nature of those opportunities, the ability to perceive them, which of them can be pursued, and the ones that are successfully pursued.

DEVELOPMENT OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP In developing curricular aspects of entrepreneurship, Morris et al. (2013) proposed a model that distinguishes the various contexts within which entrepreneurial behavior occurs from the many key facilitators of entrepreneurial behavior. In terms of contexts, entrepreneurship can happen in virtually any context, but there are distinct challenges depending upon the context in question. As shown in Fig. 1, new start-ups, small businesses, family businesses, franchises, corporate entrepreneurship, and social ventures all represent distinct areas of study. Other contexts include entrepreneurship within particular professions or disciplines, such as entrepreneurship and the arts, agricultural entrepreneurship, health care entrepreneurship, or the entrepreneurial engineer. With regard to facilitators, the range of things that can enable individuals to more successfully engage in entrepreneurial behavior is long indeed. One should consider the many skills and competencies that an entrepreneur must develop. In Fig. 1, some of the most important capabilities, such as opportunity recognition, business planning, business modeling, resource leveraging, and risk mitigation are highlighted. Some of these are general business skills and others are uniquely entrepreneurial capabilities. With this integrated model in mind, we address some of the basic curriculum programs in entrepreneurship.

12

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

Underlying Logic in Designing Academic Programs in Entrepreneurship

Contexts • • • •

Start-up ventures Early growth firms Family Businesses Rapid growth ventures • Corporate entrepreneurship • Regional/national entrepreneurship

Fig. 1.

Facilitators • Entrepreneurship within professions & disciplines • Non-profit & social entrepreneurship • Public sector entrepreneurship • Academic entrepreneurship

• Opportunity identification & assessment • Planning • Risk mitigation • Guerilla skills • E team building • Innovation/ developing new products/services/ processes/ • Business modeling

• • • • • • • •

Creativity/ideation Resource leveraging Networking Legal & ethical insights Organizing capabilities Use of technology Venture financing Implementation skills

A Model to Guide Program Design in Entrepreneurship. Source: Morris et al. (2013, p. 78).

The model presented in Fig. 1 then becomes a template for developing a curriculum. Hence, courses are developed to reflect the different contexts within which entrepreneurship occurs (e.g., courses in new venture start-up course, small business consulting, social entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, and so forth), but the curriculum is also designed to ensure which courses provide the depth of coverage for particular facilitators, such as opportunity recognition, risk management, or business planning. In the process, overlap and duplication of efforts is minimized, while logic, flow and complementarity are enhanced. Undergraduate Programs In most universities the undergraduate program is the first (and sometimes easiest) place for an entrepreneurship program to gain traction. The students tend to be less risk averse and, with today’s generation, they are seeking a more meaningful career … one that empowers and transforms. The following outline some of the basic degree programs that can be initiated at the undergraduate level. Minor in Entrepreneurship One of the more prevalent undergraduate degree programs offered by universities is a minor or concentration in entrepreneurship. The minor

Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs

13

typically ranges from twelve to twenty-four hours, with fifteen hours as the norm. A key distinction concerns the target audiences for the minor. Designs will vary depending on whether the primary focus is students across the campus, or principally students studying business. With a crosscampus minor, relevant courses can be from an array of disciplines as offerings are identified that have a strong creativity, innovation, or entrepreneurship emphasis and that are open to an array of students. One challenge in making this type of minor work is the need for flexibility in terms of how rigorously pre-requisites are enforced. One of the exciting features of the university-wide minor is the ability to get students from other disciplines in the same classroom, addressing entrepreneurial issues that have relevance and points of interface with any and all of these disciplines. Alternatively, universities will design a minor that more heavily targets business students with traditional majors in the business disciplines. With a minor there must be an actual program as opposed to a smattering of courses. The need here is to develop a learning flow in terms of a beginning, middle, and end. One approach is to require students to apply to the minor, with an application form that assesses entrepreneurial goals and competencies (and perhaps reassesses students upon completion of the minor). With regard to the flow of courses, as a general rule, a foundation course and courses with an imagination, creativity and opportunity identification emphasis would come early; those addressing functional issues in marketing, finance, or operations together with specialty courses such as social entrepreneurship, international entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, and family business would come in the middle; and courses focused on strategic entrepreneurship and the creation of an integrated business plan would come at the back end. Major in Entrepreneurship Formal majors in entrepreneurship are usually offered through a business school resulting in a bachelor’s of science degree in business with a major in entrepreneurship. Universities generally require a major to have a host department, whether it is an entrepreneurship department, a management & entrepreneurship department, or simply a management or marketing department. Not surprisingly, the design of the major will tend to reflect the bias of the department in which it is housed. As these degrees develop, schools sometimes add tracks within the major. A track is typically achieved by pursing a set of entrepreneurship electives that have a common theme or focus. Again, multiple possibilities arise, but the earlier discussion of contexts for entrepreneurship tends to

14

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

govern the creation of tracks. Sample tracks might include an emphasis on technology entrepreneurship, family business management and growth, corporate entrepreneurship and innovation, or sustainability, ethics, and entrepreneurship.

Masters Programs in Entrepreneurship Graduate level programs are a relatively new phenomenon. Initially, schools offered elective courses in entrepreneurship, usually through their Master’s of Business Administration (MBA) program. Eventually, demand and the addition of more course offerings led to the creation of entrepreneurship concentrations within the MBA, and to graduate certificate programs. The newest trend, however, is the Master of Science in Entrepreneurship (MSE), a degree that is likely to take off over the next decade. As it is the most comprehensive graduate program, let us first consider the MSE. Master of Science in Entrepreneurship Whereas the undergraduate curriculum tends to address a wide variety of contexts within which entrepreneurial behavior occurs, the MSE is focused on launching new for-profit and nonprofit ventures. The degree at the University of Florida provides an example. A thirty-five credit hour master’s degree is offered, and it can be completed in a twelve-month period. The primary target market includes two broad segments: (i) students with undergraduate degrees in fields that may have given them an idea for a business, but where they have had no business exposure (e.g., architecture, engineering, art) and (ii) individuals who have been out of school and pursuing a career, but have decided to start their own venture and want to spend a year finding out how to do so. Requirements for admission include a bachelor’s degree in any field and a formal proposal for a venture. A requirement of the degree at Florida is that each student must launch a venture, a feature that serves to integrate all the program components. A set of 15 criteria for venture start-up have been established, and a student must meet at least 8 of these criteria. Examples include applying for patent, developing a prototype, making a formal pitch to an investor or banker, and achieving a sale. Although a relatively new creation, the popularity of the MSE has led schools to consider three related program innovations. The first of these is the online MSE, where students complete the degree through distance learning and some modification of the experiential learning components.

Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs

15

A second program innovation is the Executive Master’s in Entrepreneurship. Here, a specialized version of the Master’s was offered, sometimes at a price premium, to students who wish to pursue their studies on weekends or in concentrated blocks. The third innovation involves joint degrees, where the Master’s in Entrepreneurship is bundled with another master’s degree, such as in Veterinary Medicine, Engineering, or Fine Arts, and the total number of required credit hours for the two degrees is reduced from what would be required to complete each of them individually. MBA Concentration An MBA is a general management degree, but it is not unusual for universities to allow students to obtain a specialization or concentration as part of the MBA. Total credit hours in an MBA will typically range from 46 to 55 depending on the university, usually with twelve hours of electives. These electives are sometimes combined with one or two required core courses to craft a concentration in entrepreneurship (sometimes titled “entrepreneurial management” or “entrepreneurship and innovation”). Another variant is to allow students who are not necessarily enrolled in an MBA program to pursue a graduate certificate in entrepreneurship. These certificates are a flexible means of providing a formal entrepreneurship exposure to graduate students. For instance, a student enrolled in a master’s program in a nonbusiness discipline such as engineering or art may be able to structure their coursework such that they can spend one extra semester and pick up the graduate certificate. Another primary target market for the certificate is individuals who have undergraduate degrees, and perhaps are pursuing some sort of career, but are seriously considering starting a venture. This type of individual does not have time to complete a full MSE or MBA degree, but wants a relatively concise yet substantive exposure to the issues surrounding successful venture creation. The structure of a certificate program might mimic the design of the MBA concentration above, but without the MBA core. Hence, the student would take the foundational course in entrepreneurship plus and any three electives from the discipline.

Doctoral Programs in Entrepreneurship A select set of U.S. schools have been offering a dedicated Ph.D. program in entrepreneurship for a number of years including Indiana University, Oklahoma State University, Syracuse University, Stanford University, the

16

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

University of Colorado, the University of Louisville, and the University of Missouri at Kansas City. Students can also specialize in entrepreneurship in the strategy or management Ph.D. programs at a number of universities. The purpose of these doctoral programs is to produce scholars who can become thought leaders in the discipline of entrepreneurship. As such, the degrees have a very strong research focus. At most schools, it is a four year degree, with some students staying a fifth year to ensure they have established enough of a publication base in top academic journals. The typical program admits only one or two doctoral students per year, and provides both a tuition waiver and an annual stipend. The doctoral candidates are expected to publish their research while in the program, and have limited teaching duties. To enter a typical doctoral program, a student must have completed a Master’s degree, most frequently an MBA or Master’s in Entrepreneurship. If the student’s academic background in entrepreneurship is insufficient, they will need to complete up to six hours of Master’s level coursework in entrepreneurship while in the doctoral program. Once in the program, in addition to their major field, students must select a minor field of study, frequently finance, economics, psychology, sociology, or anthropology. Coursework generally runs the first two years, with comprehensive written and oral examinations given at the end of the second year. If passed, the candidate then prepares and defends a dissertation proposal. Once approved, they complete the dissertation work and must successfully pass an oral defense. Doctoral students also receive an annual review by the faculty regarding whether their progress in the program is adequate. Another approach is evident at the University of Arizona, which offers a minor in entrepreneurship for doctoral students. Ph.D. students from any field can take a comprehensive 15
18 credit minor that exposes them to primarily applied concepts in entrepreneurship, enabling them to pursue a wider range of research related careers, including commercializing their own discoveries and inventions, research development in existing companies, and growing research programs in institutions. The minor plan of study is jointly evaluated by the home department, dissertation committee, and entrepreneurship faculty. The minor places these students in a cohort with graduate students in entrepreneurship and alongside a cohort of entrepreneurial and corporate law students for the duration of the program, which focuses on theory, cases, and specific technology commercial development components as an extension of research. Since its inception, the program has attracted students representing fields ranging from optical sciences, medicine, biomedical engineering, chemical engineering, plant

Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs

17

sciences, genomics, music, and others. Establishing the minor in the study plan also helps to remove barriers to entrepreneurship education/experience realized by many doctoral students in their overall study plan. This of course is not to be confused with a Ph.D. program in Entrepreneurship specifically, but can have an important place in the ways that universities can prepare their students for entrepreneurial interactions and successes. There is significant focus in both federal and industry supported research to build in entrepreneurial facets to doctoral education. This is an effective way to do so. Importantly, formal degree programs offer advantages both inside and outside the university. Within the university, the offering of an undergraduate major or minor or a graduate concentration or degree provides an academic home for interested students, while sending a clear message to students (and faculty in all disciplines) that the university places significance on the study of entrepreneurship. It leads the involved faculty to take more ownership of the total educational experience in entrepreneurship. It also provides a base or foundation from which cross-campus and interdisciplinary initiatives in entrepreneurship can be launched. Outside the university, these programs can enable to the university to attract students and tap target audiences that otherwise might be missed. They can heighten a university’s engagement in economic and community development, especially when they increase number of new for-profit and nonprofit ventures being launched, while also engaging students in projects that assist existing small and family businesses.

Learning Experientially The emergence of entrepreneurship is not simply about courses taught or the degree programs available. Even more significant is the manner in which learning is approached. Entrepreneurship is at the leading edge of the movement in higher education toward experiential learning, or learning by doing and observing others doing. In addition to the use of case studies and simulations in the classroom, entrepreneurship students routinely must develop business models for new for-profit and nonprofit ventures, write business plans, conduct entrepreneurial audits of established companies, create marketing inventions, complete consulting projects for small firms, perform feasibility analysis for new products and services, work on technology commercialization projects, and interview entrepreneurs. Beyond this, the co-curricular elements of many entrepreneurship programs include

18

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

business plan and elevator pitch competitions, incubators in which students can run businesses while in school, seed capital funds, internship programs with emerging companies, and mentoring programs involving successful entrepreneurs. Yet a third level of experiential learning opportunities derives from the community outreach initiatives sponsored by university entrepreneurship programs. But a few examples include boot camps for community members trying to start ventures, forums for women entrepreneurs, entrepreneurial assistance programs for disabled veterans, support for community incubators, and efforts to encourage entrepreneurship among at-risk youth. By getting involved with these types of programs as project managers or volunteers, students can learn from observation and engagement in a wide range of contexts. This wide range of experiential learning possibilities is continually being augmented with new innovations. By growing the volume of student experiences, students come to appreciate the value of practicing. Much like the piano player who is only able to reach greatness through continual practice, leading edge programs encourage students to continually engage in the practice of entrepreneurship. Some universities go further, requiring students to build “experience portfolios” while they are enrolled in the entrepreneurship program. Hence, by the time they graduate, a student might have completed a dozen or more unique entrepreneurial experiences. In the process, they are not only coming to better understand entrepreneurial principles and concepts by seeing them in practice, but they are developing entrepreneurial competencies, a subject to which we will return.

THE FUTURE: PROGRAMS THAT EMPOWER AND TRANSFORM Entrepreneurship programs are having a dramatic impact on university campuses today. While generations of students arrive on campuses unprepared for an age when they must be more mobile, agile, innovative, resourceful, and adaptable, there is evidence that they are profoundly more interested in entrepreneurship than any previous generation (Koebler, 2011). And why not? Entrepreneurs are the heroes
they make the world livable for everyone else. They are the ones who question, who challenge; they are the ones who take responsibility for change; they are what the human spirit is all about; they are the hope for a better life, for the end of poverty, for the destruction of discrimination; they are the quiet

Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs

19

revolutionaries. Simply stated, entrepreneurship is the most empowering, the most democratic, the most freedom-creating, and most transforming phenomenon in the history of the human race (Morris, 2013). An effective entrepreneurship program can empower students to create their own job; create their own future; create their own wealth; create their own sense of pride and self-worth; create their own identity; create their own facilities and operations; create jobs for others; create their own contribution to the world; and create their own ability to give back. If a properly structured and developed entrepreneurship program can offer this type of empowering potential for students, the outcomes can be transformative. Students become empowered to transform markets, business practices, industries, individuals, families, communities, and economies. In whatever manner the transformations occur, entrepreneurship represents the potential for individuals to change the world. This is no small statement and, in fact, it reveals the intense power of the entrepreneurial mindset that university education can foster in today’s younger generation. Our argument, then, is that the development of properly structured and designed entrepreneurship programs that reflect the context of a particular university should be predicated not simply on helping students understand concepts, theories, frameworks, and tools for starting a business. Rather, the underlying purpose should be to empower and transform students, while simultaneously empowering and transforming the campus and community. But where does one begin? As a type of roadmap for educators, we offer the 5C’s framework. Using this framework, entrepreneurship educators can begin the steps to initiate, grow, and sustain programs that capture the real potential of entrepreneurship as a discipline. Let’s explore each of the elements of this framework. 1. Concept (of the program) In establishing the “concept” of a program, educators need to ask a series of questions, including: What convictions drive their approach? What competencies are being developed in students? What connections are being leveraged by faculty and staff? What creative edge exists in the program design? What challenges to convention are in the program implementation? Answers to these questions can help establish how the program should be conceptualized. Is the core concept one of (a) creating an administrative unit, (b) establishing an academic unit, (c) managing the program as if it were a type of venture, (d) approaching the program as a type of an innovation factory, or (e) building a platform

20

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

for empowerment and transformation. And finally, but most importantly, what is the self-concept of the educator initiating the program? Eventually the program will be a reflection of the founding developer so the question of self-concept becomes extremely relevant. 2. Convictions (about program purpose) As an educator seeking to develop an effective entrepreneurship program, it is also important to establish one’s convictions. As examples, do those running a program believe that every student on the campus has entrepreneurial potential? Is there a conviction that students can really change the world? Should students be encouraged to start ventures right out of school? How much entrepreneurial learning should occur outside the formal classroom? Are students able to substantively assist small businesses become more viable? Can students be totally immersed in entrepreneurship in such a way that their attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors are meaningfully impacted? Is the entrepreneurial mindset something that can be fostered in students? Many of those involved with entrepreneurship programs seem to suffer from a type execution phobia, where they expect students to be able to absorb entrepreneurial concepts, and analyze entrepreneurial scenarios, but not actually do anything truly entrepreneurial. Alternatively, some of the most successful programs understand that contemporary students want to be part of something bigger than themselves, and must be permitted to fail. They empower students to run components of the entrepreneurship program, require them to continually create, expect them to challenge convention, and assist them in starting things. The beginning point is for educators to candidly assess their personal convictions, as these convictions effectively define the parameters and boundaries of whatever program is ultimately established. 3. Competencies (around which the program is designed) A competency refers to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and behaviors that people need to successfully perform a particular activity or task. It is our contention that a distinct set of competencies is critical for entrepreneurial action, and that they must be recognized and developed. Morris, Webb, Fu, & Singhal (2013) provided a study that outlined 13 specific competencies for entrepreneurship which included:
Opportunity Recognition: perceiving possibilities as sources for a venture.
Opportunity Assessment: evaluating opportunities for relative attractiveness.

Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs

21


Risk Mitigation: reducing the probability of a risk or its potential impact.
Compelling Vision: articulating an image that empowers followers to enact it.
Tenacity/Perseverance: sustaining goal-directed action amid obstacles.
Creative Problem Solving: relate previously unrelated variables for novel outcomes.
Resource Leveraging: accessing resources one does not own or control.
Guerrilla Skills: employing unconventional, low-cost tactics not recognized by others.
Value Creation: developing new products or services that create value.
Focus versus Adapt: balancing the strategic direction of the organization while addressing the need to identify and pursue new actions to improve an organization.
Resilience: coping with stresses and thriving in the face of adversity.
Self-Efficacy: maintaining a sense of self-confidence regarding one’s ability.
Creating Networks: developing social interaction skills. Such competencies become the raw material used in designing the curriculum, co-curricular programing, and degree programs. They also serve an important role in assessment of student outcomes, in effect answering the question: “if the program is effective, what should students have gotten better at?” 4. Connections (for extending the program) Making connections across a university campus to develop the value proposition for entrepreneurship within every academic unit or college is a critical component of 21st century entrepreneurship programs. Such connections unleash entrepreneurship as a university-wide mandate. Sample areas for extending entrepreneurship include arts entrepreneurship; the anthropology of entrepreneurship; historical entrepreneurship; health care entrepreneurship; green or sustainable entrepreneurship; media and entrepreneurship; morality and entrepreneurship; public sector entrepreneurship; entrepreneurship and the built environment; family and entrepreneurship; agricultural entrepreneurship; women, ethnic, and minority entrepreneurship; and global entrepreneurship. These are arguably only a handful of the potential dimensions that exist for

22

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

entrepreneurship across a campus. Each educator must “connect the dots” to recognize where on the campus the mandate should be initiated. 5. Character (of those involved with leading the program) Beyond the conceptualization of the overall entrepreneurship program is the question of how the educator views himself or herself. Conventional role definitions include such concepts as educator, scholar, student mentor, program developer, program administrator, and grant seeker. We contend that entrepreneurship programs realize their full potential when those who deliver them define themselves as academic entrepreneurs. Hence the entrepreneurial mindset one is trying to convey to students becomes ingrained in how faculty and staff approach the academic environment. An academic entrepreneur is one who seeks to continually: • discover opportunity within the academic setting; • develop programmatic innovations to capitalize on these opportunities; • implement a constant stream of curricular, research, student engagement, and community outreach innovations; • take calculated risks in a university environment; • leverage resources from within and outside the university to support program development and sustainability; • bootstrap and act as a guerrilla to get new initiative implemented. As an academic entrepreneur, the faculty member serves as more than keen observer of a discipline or adroit conveyor of a knowledge base. He or she becomes an agent of social and economic change, leveraging the university context to empower students and facilitate disruptive approaches to problem solving.

CONCLUSIONS The remarkable development of entrepreneurship as a disciplinary focus within universities over the past forty years leads one to wonder what the next forty years will bring. One scenario finds entrepreneurship, having now achieved legitimization, maturing into a scholarly endeavor that strives to mimic its somewhat older counterparts in the business disciplines (e.g., finance, marketing) or its much older counterparts in the social sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology). Such maturing may bring with it a

Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs

23

more conservative view which moves scholarly activity further from practice and away from engagement with the entrepreneurial context. A very different scenario is one where entrepreneurship helps to lead the transformation of universities and redefine their role in society. The latter scenario begins with the recognition that entrepreneurship is not about the mechanics of how to start and grow a new business, or the art and science of opportunity discovery and exploitation. It is about empowerment and transformation, where students from across the campus are encouraged to dream big; are given the tools to make such dreams come true; are challenged to do things greater than themselves; and are allowed to fail. Moreover, in this scenario, entrepreneurship programs serve as catalysts for new ways of thinking and acting on the part of all the internal and external stakeholders involved with these programs. They continually introduce new approaches to learning through engagement, to the generation of original knowledge regarding how entrepreneurial behavior is facilitated, to the development of alternative business models that ensure the sustainability of universities, and to the establishment of richer and more impacting ways to interact with the external community. It is a scenario that will be realized, in the final analysis, by faculty members who define themselves as academic entrepreneurs.

REFERENCES Bowers, M. R., Bowers, C., & Ivan, G. (2006). Academically based entrepreneurship centers: An exploration of structure and function. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 9, 1
14. Brush, C., Duhaime, I., Gartner, W., Stewart, A., Katz, J., Hitt, M., … Venkataraman, S. (2003). Doctoral education in the field of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 309
331. Chrisman, J. J., & Carsrud, A. L. (1991). Outsider assistance needs of pre-ventures and established small businesses: A comparison of minority and non-minority clients. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 3, 207
220. Dickson, P., Solomon, G., & Weaver, K. (2008). Entrepreneurial selection and success: Does education matter? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 239
258. Finkle, T. A., Kuratko, D. F., & Goldsby, M. (2006). The state of entrepreneurship centers in the United States: A nationwide survey. Journal of Small Business Management (50th Anniversary Issue), 44(2), 184
206. Finkle, T. A., Menzies, T. V., Kuratko, D. F., & Goldsby, M. G. (2013). A global examination of the financial challenges of entrepreneurship centers. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(1), 67
85. Gartner, W. B., & Vesper, K. (1994). Experiments in entrepreneurship education: Successes and failures. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), 179
189.

24

MICHAEL H. MORRIS AND DONALD F. KURATKO

Kaplan, T. E., George, G., & Rimler, G. (2000). Research note university-sponsored family business programs: Program characteristics, perceived quality and member satisfaction. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24(2), 65
75. Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual Trajectory of American entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283
300. Katz, J. A. (2004). 2004 Survey of endowed positions in entrepreneurship and related fields in the united states. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Katz, J. A. (2008). Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 4(4), 550
566. Koebler, J. (2011). Students want to become business owners but lack training. Retrieved from www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes. Accessed on February 9, 2013. Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, Trends, and Challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577
597. Kuratko, D. F. (2009). The entrepreneurial imperative of the 21st century. Business Horizons, 52(5), 421
428. Kuratko, D. F. (2014). Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, Practice (9th ed.), Mason, OH: Cengage Publishing. Morris, M. H. (2013). Entrepreneurship: Empowerment and transformation. Keynote Address; Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers Conference, Kansas City, MO. Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Cornwall, J. R. (2013). Entrepreneurship programs and the modern university. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar. Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., Fu, J., & Singhal, S. (2013). A competency-based perspective on entrepreneurship education: Conceptual and empirical insights. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 352
369. Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1177
1194. Solomon, G. T. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. International Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168
182. Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S., & Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the united states: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 65
86. Solomon, G. T., & Fernald, L. (1991). Trends in small business management and entrepreneurship education in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(3), 25
40. Solomon, G. T., Weaver, M., & Fernald, L. (1994). A historical examination of small business management and entrepreneurial pedagogy. Simulation and Gaming, 25(3), 338
352. Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403
421. Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. (1999). University Entrepreneurship Programs
1999. Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, University of Southern California.

EXPLORING THE CONCEPT OF AN ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION ECOSYSTEM Candida G. Brush ABSTRACT This chapter explores the concept of an entrepreneurship education ecosystem. The concept of ecosystem comes from the natural sciences, but is increasingly applied to regional development, or clusters, which focus on firm inter-organizational relationships. Building on the idea of the university is a key player in a local entrepreneurship ecosystem, this chapter provides a framework for examining a school’s role in this process. A typology is presented that articulates roles that schools may pursue in developing their own internal entrepreneurship education ecosystem. Keywords: Entrepreneurship education; entrepreneurship ecosystem; university-based ecosystem; entrepreneurship curriculum; typology; domain of entrepreneurship

Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, Volume 24, 25
39 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1048-4736/doi:10.1108/S1048-473620140000024000

25

26

CANDIDA G. BRUSH

INTRODUCTION The term “ecosystem” was developed in 1930 by Roy Clapham, to denote physical and biological components in an environment and their relationship to each other. British ecologist Arthur Tansley adapted the term describing it as the interactive system established between bicoenosis (a group of living creatures) and their biotope (environment in which they live). Tansley emphasized the links between biotic and abiotic components of the system. More recently the definition of Christopherson (1997) was broadly accepted, “a natural system consisting of all plants, animals and microorganisms (biotic factors) in an area functioning together with all the non-living physical (abiotic) factors of the environment.” Central to the concept is the idea that living organisms are continually engaged in a set of relationships with every other element of the environment. Ecosystems can be bounded and discussed with a variety of scope. Ecosystems can be small or large; there are interdependencies; and they are dynamic and changing. They are subject to disturbances
some controllable, some not (e.g., weather)
and there is often a hierarchy or social order (first, second, or third level consumers).1,2 There are two general types of ecosystems, terrestrial (forest, desert, mountain, grassland) and aquatic (marine, freshwater, rivers, or swamps). Another way to characterize ecosystems is by whether they are natural or artificial. Natural ecosystems are found in a natural environment (e.g., river, pond, forest), whereas artificial are environments modified by humans in some ways (e.g., farm, crops).3 The concept of human ecology evolved in the 1920s with the consideration of plants, animals, and humans as a basis for understanding and integration and interactions among them (Grove & Burch, 1997). In the 1930s scholars from the University of Chicago applied ecological concepts such as succession, competition, and metabolism to describe stages of community structure (organization) and function (processes) (Park, 1936). By the 1950s the idea of human ecological systems as an integrated biosocial approach to understanding communities, urban areas, and environments gained favor. Human ecosystems were considered to be open (rather than closed), not self-regulating and dynamic. Social dimensions of human ecosystems are identified as having four levels: • The individual (human body, organism, biophysical aspects) • The individual as a person (self-interpreting being)

Exploring the Concept of an Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem

27

• The group or society • The culture as embodiment of meaning and symbolic expression. The four components are part of a social system and there are interrelationships across these social systems. The dimensions of the interrelationships are determined by the basic patterns of interactions and meaning and significance to the participants. A second element has to do with the system’s capacity to acquire, process, and distribute resources (Lewis & Slider, 1996). The concept of human ecosystem is also applied to describe food systems, energy systems, cybernetics, and a variety of other domains. This is a multi-dimensional concept, with three primary dimensions: meaning, model, and metaphor (Pickett & Cadenasso, 2002). In organizations, these are commonly referred to as aspects of organizational culture. • Meaning is the technical or abstract which can be any size, and can include systems and processes. • Model explains the parts, how they interact, the scope, and the specification of the system. This includes the components of the system (species, populations, units), domain (spatial and temporal), physical boundaries, connections between the components, and the constraints on the system. • Metaphor is the informal and symbolic aspects of the ecosystem, the values and ways communications and interactions take place. This stimulates synthesis and integration within the ecosystem.

BUSINESS ECOSYSTEMS Early ideas of business ecosystems are linked to Alfred Chandler’s (1969) work which describes an automobile-centric ecosystem. He articulates a variety of complimentary goods necessary for cars to be useful
roads, gasoline service stations, retailers as well as steel makers, component manufacturers, tire makers, and chassis builders. More recently significant work applies the concept to forms of economic coordination complementing markets and hierarchies. Recent work by Prahalad and Hammond (2002) in developing countries discusses the symbiotic nature of relationships between various private sector and social institutional players that can lead to rapid development of markets. The business ecosystem is conceived as a network of interdependent niches that are occupied by organizations. For

28

CANDIDA G. BRUSH

companies to co-evolve their goods and services, they must align their visions to be mutually supportive to their environmental ecosystem. Other disciplines have described software network ecosystems, drawing heavily from network theory (Iyer, Lee, & Venkataraman, 2006). In this view, the complex pattern of relationships among key players in the software industry can be analyzed by examining their key relationships and dimensions (network density, role in the network
hub, broker, bridge). Alternatively, a digital media ecosystem refers to all media that are created, captured, stored, or delivered in a digital format. This includes all traditional forms of media including print, radio, and television. The participants include content users, web application and services, interactive producers, and video and film producers.4 More recently, James Moore (1993) characterized the business ecosystem in terms of a new ecology of competition, arguing that a company is not viewed as a member of a single industry, but part of a business ecosystem, cutting across a variety of business ecosystems, companies, products, and customer sets. For instance, Apple computer is the leader of an ecosystem cutting across personal computing, consumer electronics, information, and communications and encompassing a web of suppliers including Motorola, Sony, and others. Grounding the idea in business strategy, Moore offers prescriptions for competitive or cooperative strategies and suggests four stages of the business ecosystem life cycle: birth, expansion, leadership, and self-renewal. The learning ecosystem has emerged as a useful way of thinking about e-learning in higher education. Using the biological ecosystem dimensions, a learning ecosystem is described as a complex community and environment where the learner interacts within a blended environment where time, place, and space are ever-changing. The components include the designer, the learner, and the technology. The individuals are the organisms, the physical environment is the location, space, IT structure, and IT systems, and the relationships between organisms is characterized as the culture, delegation, feedback, and progress of the individuals in the learning environment (Chang & Guetl, 2007). Entrepreneurship ecosystems are attracting recent attention, mostly in the policy area where communities and regions seek to develop and expand entrepreneurial ventures in particular areas. For instance, Isenberg (2010) presents domains of an entrepreneurship ecosystem: conducive culture, enabling policies and leadership, availability of finance, quality human capital, venture-friendly markets for products, and a range of institutional and infrastructural supports. The World Economic Forum (2013) identifies

Exploring the Concept of an Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem

29

seven similar components: markets, culture, education and training, regulatory framework and infrastructure, funding and finance, and human capital. In these cases, regional or community efforts are involved to develop a vibrant ecosystem. In the academic environment, the organization and environment relationship has been the focus of theorists for several decades. The population ecology lens was applied to strategies of universities by Hannan and Freeman (1977). The notion of education ecosystems emerged in the early 1990s as a way to think about the functioning of higher education systems in their environment. An education ecosystem is perceived as a “patch of landscape” where relations between individuals, groups, and organizations are ever-changing (Odum, 1992). Recently the evolution, tools, dimensions, interactions, and other aspects of higher education ecosystems is the subject of debate and conversation.

UNIVERSITY-BASED ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM (U-BEE) The idea of entrepreneurship ecosystems is emerging as a popular topic around the world, as economic development is perceived as a solution to both social and economic problems (Xavier, Kelley, Kew, Herrington, & Vorderwulbecke, 2013). Online conversations and articles in the popular press describe the interactions between universities, the finance community, service providers, faculty, and entrepreneurs that help to support economic development and innovation.5 Yet the history, empirical and theoretical foundation of this work is very recent, as noted in the recent publication by Fetters, Rice, Greene and Butler (2010) about university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems (U-BEEs). As Fetters, Greene, Rice, and Butler (2010) note, universities are at the hub of economic development around the world providing infrastructure, resources, and means to develop entrepreneurial communities. They argue that entrepreneurial ecosystems evolve and expand through specialization of knowledge and innovation. Following Aulet (2008), they argue that the relevant aspects of entrepreneurship ecosystems are alignment of institutional objectives, access to the university and other regional resources, coordination of research initiatives, and the participation of the business community and local government. They suggest that the necessary dimensions of an entrepreneurship ecosystem are governance, innovation, infrastructure, and culture. Their

30

CANDIDA G. BRUSH

book analyzes three universities focused on the new venture creation aspects of an entrepreneurship ecosystem. The case studies include details of internal university activities as well as external interactions within the community and provide recommendations appropriate to policy-makers, administrators, educators, and practitioners interested in creating or expanding a U-BEE. The U-BEE includes multiple levels
the individuals (student, faculty, staff, practitioner, and administration), groups (faculty, students), organizations (incubators, centers), events, and community stakeholders (government, policy-makers, industry, funders). Central to the U-BEE are internal entrepreneurship activities, revolving around curricular, co-curricular, and research activities. Building off the U-BEE framework, the next section articulates the aspects of the internal entrepreneurship education ecosystem.

INTERNAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION ECOSYSTEM The internal entrepreneurship education ecosystem is a central component of the U-BEE, but focused primarily on the entrepreneurship activities across a campus or school and within the departments directly connected to entrepreneurial activity. Internal entrepreneurship activities are nested within the community and school, and comprised of a “domain” which includes curriculum, co-curricular activities, and research which are the main activities universities and colleges engage in with regard to entrepreneurship (Alberti, Sciascia, & Poli, 2004; Kuratko, 2005). Drawing from Fetters et al. (2010) we adopt the dimensions of infrastructure, stakeholders, resources to characterize the internal entrepreneurship education ecosystem as well, defining these for a school or university (See Fig. 1).

Domain: Curriculum, Co-Curricular Activities, Research Entrepreneurship Curriculum A curriculum is organized by discipline, program, or concentration for a degree. It is a set of courses and their content, and the courses are based on a syllabus which specifies learning objectives, topics, and grading criteria. This involves decisions about which materials are used in courses, which cases, choices of exercises, pedagogies, concepts, and delivery mechanisms.

Exploring the Concept of an Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem

Fig. 1.

31

Domain of Internal Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem.

This is linked to the school’s definition of entrepreneurship in a curriculum, the role of theory, integration across classes, and disciplines are all decision points for entrepreneurship curriculum. Entrepreneurship Co-Curricular Activities These are all non-degree bearing activities that enrich the student learning experience. These include and are not limited to programs, clubs, living experiences, workshops, guest speakers, forums, business plan competitions, networking, and other programs. This includes decisions about co-curricular activities include the choice of leadership (faculty or staff), resources, audience served, faculty incentives, and resource allocation. Entrepreneurship Research This covers both theoretical and applied research across a broad domain, but primarily “the actors, actions, resources, environmental influences and outcomes associated with the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities and/ or new economic activities in multiple organizational contexts, and (b) the characteristics, actions, and challenges of owner-managers and their businesses.”6 Theoretical research has a goal of proving or disproving a hypothesized truth, and in the entrepreneurship arena, this can follow a variety of methods, approaches, and contexts. Applied research accesses and uses a research community’s accumulated theories, knowledge, methods, and techniques for a specific purpose, often that of a particular client

32

CANDIDA G. BRUSH

(family, entrepreneur, investor, etc.), to prove/disprove a hypothesized truth. This includes decisions about research focus, faculty incentives and rewards, financial support, access to data, and dissemination of findings.

Dimensions: Internal Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem Stakeholders are the social and human components of the school
the faculty, staff, and students who participate in the life of the school. Stakeholders are all of those involved in the three aspects of entrepreneurship curriculum, co-curricular activities, and research (e.g., faculty, staff, leadership and administration, students, parents, alumni, service providers, service and infrastructure staff, marketing and public relations, partners). Stakeholders have different interests, commitments and agendas. They assume a variety of roles, interactions and relationships, as determined by their roles and where they are engaged in the school. Stakeholders are engaged in networks, and connected individually across the school and throughout the community. Understanding the variety of stakeholder needs, connections, and motivations is critical to building a connected and productive ecosystem. Stakeholders operate within a governance structure (leadership, committees, administration, departmental structure, school hierarchy) that guides activities within the domain, provides a means for decision-making, and allocates and manages resources (social, financial, physical, and technological). Resources are the money, technology, physical facilities, social capital, organizational partnerships, capabilities, and skills of faculty and staff. Resources can be generic or commodities compared to other schools, or they may be unique and hard to replicate. For instance, a research laboratory for nano-technology that produces significant basic research and spawns new ventures might be a unique, hard to replicate resource. On the other hand, having a business plan competition might be a generic resource. Monetary resources that are significant in size and committed for the longer term (for instance, endowments, sponsorship, or government contracts) and might also be hard to replicate capabilities. Intellectual knowledge or research capabilities that are unique in the entrepreneurship arena might also be considered capabilities rather than generic resources. Organizational partnerships that bring credibility to the institution, joint degree programs might also be areas of expertise, in addition to the reputation and social capital the institution may have in the marketplace.

Exploring the Concept of an Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem

33

Infrastructure is generally considered to be the physical campus (roads, buildings, facilities), but also includes the technological or digital environment (internet, communications, computer platforms, telephone system), in that this is the technology platform within which people communicate and interact. The infrastructure also includes the distribution channels for information, marketing, branding, and positioning the school. The connectedness or dispersion of entrepreneurship activities, programs, classes, or research across the infrastructure can make a difference in terms of the ability for a school to leverage its entrepreneurship capabilities. Networks, both structural (technology) and individual social (formal and informal), are part of the infrastructure, and the extent to which these networks are frequently or infrequently used, tightly or loosely connected, determines the communications, dissemination of information and knowledge, and cohesiveness of the entrepreneurship ecosystem on campus. Connections within the school networks include the way that entities are linked through governance, the means of communications (email, phone, portal, meetings). Culture includes the symbolic aspects, norms, values, and traditions of the school. Culture is the touch and feel of the campus, the intangibles, and core values that guide work in the school. This is related to the school mission, and definition of entrepreneurship. For instance, if the mission is to be the “foremost community college dedicated to growing small businesses” then it follows that the definition of entrepreneurship would be rooted in small business founding and self-employment, while courses and curriculum would be focused on launching and growing small owner-managed firms. Culture is infused within the domain (curriculum, co-curricular, and research), and influences behavior, communications, and relationships among stakeholders. Understanding culture can help align the entrepreneurship ecosystem aspirations with campus environment.

A TYPOLOGY FOR CONSIDERING ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION ECOSYSTEMS Applying the two aspects of entrepreneurship education ecosystem, domain and dimensions, we can create a typology (See Fig. 2). In the domain of entrepreneurship activities (curricular, co-curricular, and research) a school will have to engage in a scope of activities ranging from high (or broad) to low (narrow). For example, a school may have a few stand-alone courses in

34

CANDIDA G. BRUSH

Fig. 2.

Typology of School Roles in Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem.

entrepreneurship or they may have a full program of entrepreneurship where it is a required course. Similarly, the breadth of research may be low (one or two individual faculty engaging in independent research) or quite high whereby a school will have university-sponsored research and funding for a major project engaging multiple faculty and staff. In terms of dimensions of entrepreneurship, the commitment of resources, infrastructure, stakeholders, and culture also varies from low (or shallow) to high (deep). For instance, a school having a separate department of entrepreneurship faculty, or a college of entrepreneurship, would reflect a high commitment. On the other hand, a school embedding entrepreneurship under strategy or management may have a lower commitment. The same is true with resources directed to co-curricular activities
on the low end, small resource investment in student clubs would represent a low commitment while on the other hand, a stand-alone incubator or accelerator including multiple faculty and staff, open to a large number of students would be a high commitment. Given that schools have different priorities and strategies, there is no right or wrong positioning. Rather a school should consider its mission and local ecosystem when thinking about the role it may adopt. Four roles are identified in Fig. 2. 1. Broker
A school assuming a broker role would have high breadth of domain activities, many courses, co-curricular activities, and research

Exploring the Concept of an Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem

35

projects by faculty, but the support would be bottom up, and participation might not be a priority for the school. Generally, there would be few financial resources allocated to entrepreneurship, and it would not be a core ingredient of the culture or school mission statement. The role in this entrepreneurship education ecosystem would be to disseminate and broker across courses and co-curricular activities. 2. Coordinator or Facilitator
A school taking this role would have a few stand-alone courses, limited faculty, and staff support. Entrepreneurship activities would be bootstrapped, and not central to the school strategy. Often a “lone wolf” would be the champion, supervising both curricular and co-curricular activities. Infrastructure and resources (technology and physical) would be shared or minimal on the school campus. The role in this entrepreneurship education ecosystem is to coordinate small sets of entrepreneurial activities and facilitate learning and research. 3. Hub
A school assuming a hub role would have both a broad scope of domain activities and deep commitment on entrepreneurship dimensions. For instance, entrepreneurship would be a required course, the co-curricular activities for entrepreneurship would be campus-wide, and the learning objectives of the school would measure entrepreneurial learning in students. Further, there would be significant resources (physical and technology resources) dedicated to entrepreneurship, as well as staff and alumni support. A school taking this role would lead to have entrepreneurship as central to all activities (curricular, co-curricular and research) and would seek to infuse it across all stakeholders. 4. Developer
A school adopting the developer role would have significant commitment in terms of resources, infrastructure, and culture, but the range of curricular, co-curricular, and research would be narrow. For example, a school might have a dedicated accelerator or center whereby resources for students and courses would be deep and fully supported, but the activities would not be widespread across campus.

CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPING AN INTERNAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION ECOSYSTEM Creating or expanding an internal entrepreneurship ecosystem requires assessment of the domain (curriculum, co-curricular and research) as well as the four dimensions- (stakeholders, resources, infrastructure and culture). For entrepreneurship educators and administrators, there are a series

36

CANDIDA G. BRUSH

of questions that might be considered in assessing the developing of an internal entrepreneurship education ecosystem.

Domain Curriculum
Where does entrepreneurship “live” on campus? Are courses in entrepreneurship managed under a discipline other than entrepreneurship (strategy, technology) or is there a separate department of entrepreneurship which houses the courses? Is entrepreneurship a required course for all students? Is there a concentration or major in entrepreneurship? Co-curricular
Are co-curricular activities confined to a center which serves only few students or are these activities widespread across students? Research
Who conducts entrepreneurship research conducted on campus? Do faculty carry out theoretical research on entrepreneurship that is disseminated to alumni, local policy-makers and used in the classroom?

Dimensions Stakeholders
Who “does” entrepreneurship on campus? Who are the individuals involved in entrepreneurship? Faculty? Administration? Students? Alumni? Or all of these stakeholders? To what degree do they interact in entrepreneurial activity? Do students have “living” experiences (such as dorms, or hatcheries) that are staffed by faculty and staff? Or are these staffed by adjuncts? Resources
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the internal ecosystem on campus? To what degree is the curriculum integrated broadly across campus? To what degree are co-curricular activities aligned with the school mission and curriculum? To what degree is there significant faculty involvement in research activities that aligned with the school mission? Infrastructure
Is entrepreneurship integrated into the digital and physical infrastructure of the campus ecosystem? How are entrepreneurship activities communicated, celebrated, and publicized? What is the role of entrepreneurship in campus marketing and reputation building? Is there digital platform to support curricular, co-curricular, and research on entrepreneurship? Are there physical facilities dedicated to entrepreneurship activities?

Exploring the Concept of an Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem

37

Culture
What is the individual entrepreneurship faculty role in the internal ecosystem? Are faculty motivated to carry out entrepreneurship teaching, research, or co-curricular activities? What are faculty “stakes” in entrepreneurship on campus? Can faculty influence the entrepreneurship internal ecosystem? How aligned are faculty activities and participation in entrepreneurship with the culture and entrepreneurial perspective of the school?

CONCLUSION The extent to which the domain activities (curriculum, co-curricular, and research) are tightly connected and aligned and the degree to which a school commits deeply to dimensions (infrastructure, resources, people, and culture) determine the ecosystem role of a school. The roles may vary from a broad understanding of entrepreneurship definition and an approach extending widely across the domain, multiple disciplines, and classroom activities, creating a collective understanding of the importance of entrepreneurship in all activities, curriculum, co-curricular, and research to a narrow focused approach in terms of courses, and co-curricular, with low resource commitments and stakeholder participation. No matter what the positioning of a school’s internal entrepreneurship education ecosystem is, innovation within the ecosystem is essential, contributing to vibrancy and motivation for the stakeholders. Vibrant internal ecosystems have mechanisms set up for this process, such as experimental classes, incentives, and resources allowing for new curricular and co-curricular activities. A culture supporting trial and error, experimenting to create new pedagogies, opportunities for new student learning activities and support for novel research allows for development and growth of an internal university ecosystem. Finally, thriving internal ecosystems have vehicles in place for acquiring, leveraging, and managing resources (social, financial, physical, technological, and organizational) that allow innovation and integration to continue. A thriving, dynamic, and innovative internal entrepreneurship education ecosystem will allow the entire U-BEE to expand and distinguish itself in the marketplace.

NOTES 1. http://www.ecosystems.ws/ecosystem_concept.htm 2. http://www.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/habitat/habitat.html

38

CANDIDA G. BRUSH

3. http://forthefuture.hubpages.com/hub/Different-Types-Of-EcosystemsNatural-And-Artificial-Ecosystem 4. http://treliosdmg.com/news/The-Digital-Media-Ecosystem-26/ 5. http://www.technologyreview.com/article/14761/; http://www.xconomy.com/ boston/2008/02/25/universities-an-entrepreneurs-ecosystem/ 6. Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Division Mission Statement: http://division.aomonline.org/ent/index.php?option=com_content&view=article& id=46&Itemid=34

REFERENCES Alberti, F., Sciascia, S. & Poli, A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Notes on an ongoing debate. Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Entrepreneurship Conference, Naples, Italy. Aulet, B. (2008). How to build a successful innovation ecosystem: Education, network and celebrate. Retrieved from Xconomy.com. Accessed on October 14, 2008. Chandler, A. (1969). Strategy and structure. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Chang, V., & Guetl, C. (2007). Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp? arnumber=4233744 Christopherson, R. W. (1997). Geosystems: An introduction to physical geography. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Fetters, M., Greene, P., Rice, M., & Butler, J. (2010). The development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: Global practices. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fetters, M. L., Rice, M. P., Greene, P. G., & Butler, J. S. (2010). The development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: Global practices. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Grove, M., & Burch, W. (1997). A social ecology approach and applications of urban system and landscape analysis: A case study of Baltimore, Maryland. Urban Ecosystems, 1, 269
275. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929
964. Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40
50, Reprint R100A. Iyer, B., Lee, C. H., & Venkataraman, N. (2006). Managing in “small world ecosystem”: Lessons from the software sector. California Management Review, 48(3), 28
47. Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 229(5), 577
598. Lewis, B. J., & Slider, T. C., (1996). Social systems and the human dimension of ecosystem management. Technical Report - USDA 1996. University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota. Moore, J. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75
86, Reprint 93309. Odum, E. P. (1992). Great ideas in ecology for the 1990’s. Bioscience, 42(7), 542
545. Park, R. E. (1936). Human ecology. American Journal of Sociology, 42, 1
15.

Exploring the Concept of an Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem

39

Pickett, S. T. A., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2002). The ecosystem as a multidimensional concept: Meaning, model and metaphor. Ecosystems, 5, 1
10. Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world’s poor. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48
57, Reprint R0209C. The World Economic Forum. (2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the globe and company dynamics. Report Summary for the Annual Meeting of the New Champions, 2013. World Economic Forum, Stanford University, Ernst & Young, Endeavor, Davos, Switzerland. Xavier, S. R., Kelley, D., Kew, J., Herrington, M., & Vorderwulbecke, A. (2013). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2012 Global report. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES OF FUTURE ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION: AN ASSESSMENT OF TEXTBOOKS FOR TEACHING ENTREPRENEURSHIP Jack Mason and Ana Cristina O. Siqueira ABSTRACT Entrepreneurship education has had a remarkable evolution over time and the number of entrepreneurship textbooks has multiplied given the increased interest in entrepreneurship programs in higher education. Yet, studies that review the coverage of textbooks focusing on entrepreneurship are scarce. This study provides an inventory of entrepreneurship textbooks and the topics they cover as well as specific emerging topics they do not cover by analyzing the content of 57 textbooks. Our results suggest that most textbooks provide significant coverage of such topics as the nature of entrepreneurship, business plans, financing, marketing, and cases. Among emerging concepts, social media has been relatively well covered with increasing coverage in more recent textbooks, while business canvas, as an example of alternatives to conventional business

Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, Volume 24, 41
64 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1048-4736/doi:10.1108/S1048-473620140000024002

41

42

JACK MASON AND ANA CRISTINA O. SIQUEIRA

plans, is rarely covered. Most textbooks have provided little coverage of such topics as sales, family business, women and minorities, as well as ethics and sustainability. This study not only reveals areas that are covered by existing textbooks but also themes that future textbooks and research could cover to address the challenges of future entrepreneurship education. Keywords: Entrepreneurship education; entrepreneurship textbooks; textbooks review; emerging entrepreneurship concepts

INTRODUCTION The importance of entrepreneurship to economic growth and job creation has become widely accepted and publicized. Job growth in the United States is driven almost entirely by start-ups that reach the rapid growth stage. “Without startups, there would be no net job growth in the U.S. economy. This fact is true on average, but also is true for all but seven years for which the United States has data going back to 1977.” “On average and for all but seven years between 1977 and 2005, existing firms are net job destroyers, losing 1 million jobs net combined per year. By contrast, in their first year, new firms add an average of 3 million jobs” (Kane, 2010). Increased focus and interest has spawned entrepreneurship programs in higher education. The number of entrepreneurship programs at two-year and four-year institutions (including minors, bachelors, masters, and doctoral programs) increased from 2136 in 2006 to 2335 in 2012 (Magelli & Kehoe, 2006, 2012). The number of entrepreneurship programs in business schools increased from 131 programs at 111 schools in 2006 to more than 151 programs at 125 schools in 2011 (Wakefield, 2012). The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) has expressed increased interest in entrepreneurship programs (Wakefield, 2012). And “… well over 400,000 students a year take courses in the subject, and almost 9,000 faculty members teach it” (Torrance, 2013). And the number of entrepreneurship textbooks has grown, too. And at the same time a number of experiments and innovations are being undertaken by entrepreneurship educators to move toward more experiential learning and away from traditional classroom lectures and discussion. As a result, it seems an appropriate time to inventory entrepreneurship textbooks and the topics they cover as well as those topics not

Addressing the Challenges of Future Entrepreneurship Education

43

covered. It can contribute to a foundation for further evolution and development of entrepreneurship education in all formats and for research in support of that development. The purpose of the research related in this chapter is to survey entrepreneurship textbooks and provide that inventory of topics addressed. The basic question addressed is: How do current entrepreneurship textbooks meet or fail to meet the demands of entrepreneurship education in the 21st Century?

Practical challenges and limitations of the survey are the large number of textbooks on entrepreneurship, the large number of possible topic areas, and the challenge of identifying concepts that are or will emerge in the 21st century. The research covers 57 entrepreneurship textbooks published by 16 publishers, 63 topic areas, and 16 discrete emerging topics. The focus of the research was general entrepreneurship textbooks rather than textbooks covering specialized topics such as finance, law, or ethics.

PREVIOUS WORK Entrepreneurship education has had a remarkable evolution over time (Katz, 2003) and currently encompasses a diversity of resources and textbooks (Tracey, 2012). Yet, studies that review and analyze textbooks focusing on entrepreneurship are rare in the literature. Notable exceptions include a study by Edelman, Manolova, and Brush (2008) in which they review textbooks and their correspondence to start-up activities of nascent entrepreneurs. Moreover, in the social entrepreneurship literature, Moss and Gras (2012) review and compare social entrepreneurship textbooks and their coverage of main concepts and themes. Interestingly, disciplines other than entrepreneurship have reviewed how textbooks in these disciplines cover entrepreneurship concepts. For instance, prior studies (Driscoll & Tesfayohannes, 2009; Tesfayohannes & Driscoll, 2010) examine the extent to which business ethics textbooks have presented entrepreneurship topics. Other studies (Kent 1989; Kent & Rushing, 1999) analyze how economic textbooks have treated entrepreneurship concepts. Prior research supports the view that entrepreneurship education has had an impact on student propensity and intentionality in pursuing entrepreneurship (Pittaway & Cope, 2007), which suggests the importance of

44

JACK MASON AND ANA CRISTINA O. SIQUEIRA

expanding the extant coverage of the pedagogical literature (e.g., Currie & Pandher, 2013) by incorporating the review and classification of entrepreneurship textbooks.

METHODOLOGY In order to inventory the topic coverage of current entrepreneurship textbooks, the research team, the authors and two research assistants took the following steps. They identified textbooks in use for entrepreneurship courses by means that included Internet search, review of previous articles, contact with publishers, review of course syllabi, and contact with instructors. Fifty-seven textbooks were identified. Our research assistants then obtained electronic copies of the textbooks from publishers. The authors next conducted a review of an initial set of textbooks to develop a preliminary set of topic areas. This set of topics proved to be excessively granular and too large. Therefore, they consolidated the set of topic areas into 60. One of the authors had the opportunity to review the topic areas with a group of peers at the Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers (GCEC) annual conference. Six additional topics were suggested. Three were added to bring the total to 63. The research team then conducted a detailed review of each textbook, identifying the number of pages devoted to each topic. In most cases, a review of a detailed table of contents sufficed. But, as necessary, they reviewed individual pages and significant portions of textbooks to ascertain the appropriate categorization. This review ignored pages such as tables of contents, indexes, tests, and problems. In addition to the absolute number of pages of coverage, dividing the number of pages devoted to each topic by the total number of such topic pages resulted in relative percentages or coverage. The authors then posed a set of emerging concepts. One of the authors also reviewed these with a peer group at the workshop at the GCEC annual conference. No concepts were added or deleted as a result. Additionally, one of the authors conducted a review of recent journals to identify additional emerging concepts. The journals reviewed were: Sloan Management Review from 2008 to 2013, Harvard Business Review from 2008 to 2013, Journal of Business Venturing from 2010 to 2013, and Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice from 2010 to 2013. No additional concepts were added. The research team then conducted a review of the textbooks for the emerging concepts.

Addressing the Challenges of Future Entrepreneurship Education

45

In order to develop insights regarding topic coverage and emerging concept coverage, heat maps for the data were developed using Spotfire (TIBCO Software, 2013). The heat maps show the data (in this case) as relative grayscale colors from white for zero to gray for intermediate, to black for relatively large numbers. “Average” coverage percentages across all textbooks were also calculated. These data presentations and analysis might guide scholars in developing future entrepreneurship textbooks and instruction.

RESULTS Table 1 lists the 57 textbooks published by 16 publishers that were surveyed. Table 2 provides examples of specialized topic textbooks not included in the survey. Table 3 provides the list of 63 textbook topics for which coverage was determined. Three topics suggested at the GCEC workshop were included in the list: human behavior and interaction, negotiation, and decision-making. Three topics suggested at the GCEC conference workshop that were not included are entrepreneurial alert & action, psychometrics, and power use. It is not feasible to show the resulting full set of 3,591 data points of pages of coverage for each textbook herein. Table 4 provides an example for 10 textbooks and 28 concepts, approximately 8% of the dataset. Table 5 provides an example of relative topic coverage, normalized and converted to percent by dividing the number of pages covering each concept in Table 4 by the total number of such pages in each textbook. Fig. 1 is a heat map showing coverage pages (absolute number of pages, not relative percentages) in each textbook for each concept. Table 6 provides a ranking of the 63 concepts based on average coverage over all 57 textbooks. The heat map and ranking for topics revealed some insights. Topics that clearly have been given adequate or more than adequate coverage included Nature of Entrepreneurship, Business Plans, Financing, Marketing, Ideation and Innovation, Opportunity, and Strategy. 34 of the textbooks provided more than 1,600 cases, varying in topics, size, and scope. Specific topic areas for which coverage appeared to be relatively light included Bankruptcy, Branding, Budgeting, Decision-making, Distribution, Government and Public Sector, Stress, and Quality. Broadly, concepts

The myths of innovation Preparing effective business plans: An entrepreneurial approach Entrepreneurial finance New venture creation: An innovator’s guide to entrepreneurship Marketing for entrepreneurs: Concepts and applications for new ventures Effectual entrepreneurship

7th

Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills Entrepreneurship: A small business approach Entrepreneurship

2012 Taylor & Francis 2009 McGraw-Hill 2010 Wiley 2008 Cengage Learning

3rd 2nd

2011 Taylor & Francis

2013 Sage Publications, Inc.

2010 Pearson 2014 Sage Publications, Inc.

2010 O’Reilly 2009 Pearson

2013 Cengage Learning 2011 McGraw-Hill 2010 McGraw-Hill

2011 Cengage Learning

2014 McGraw-Hill 2010 Cengage Learning

2014 Cengage Learning 2012 Prentice Hall

Publisher

2nd

2nd

5th 2nd

8th

3rd

4th 15th

9th 4th

Edition Year

Corporate entrepreneurship & innovation

Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, and practice Entrepreneurship: Successfully launching new ventures Entrepreneurial small business Small business management: Launching and growing entrepreneurial ventures

Title

Textbooks Surveyed.

14 Stuart Read, Saras Sarasvath, Nick Dew, Robert Wiltbank, Anne-Vale´rie Ohlsson 15 Jill Kickul, Thomas Lyons Understanding social entrepreneurship 16 Steven Rogers Entrepreneurial finance: Finance and business strategies for the serious entrepreneur 17 Jack M. Kaplan, Anthony C. Warren Patterns of entrepreneurship management 18 Robert A. Baron, Scott A. Shane Entrepreneurship: A process perspective

13 Frederick Crane

11 Philip J. Adelman, Alan M. Marks 12 Marc H. Meyer, Frederick G. Crane

3 Jerome Katz, Richard Green 4 Justin G. Longenecker, J. William Petty, Carlos W. Moore, Leslie E. Palich 5 Michael H. Morris, Donald F. Kuratko, Jeffrey G. Covin 6 Andrew J. DuBrin 7 Charles Bamford, Garry Bruton 8 Robert Hisrich, Michael Peters, Dean Shepherd 9 Scott Berkun 10 Bruce R. Barringer

1 Donald F. Kuratko 2 Bruce R. Barringer, R. Duane Ireland

Author(s)

Table 1. 46 JACK MASON AND ANA CRISTINA O. SIQUEIRA

27 William D. Bygrave, Andrew Zacharakis 28 David Rae 29 George S. Vozikis 30 Robert A. Baron 31 Stephen Roper 32 Dafna Kariv 33 Paul Burns 34 Bjo¨rn Bjerke 35 John Bessant, Joe Tidd 36 Paul Burns 37 Rhonda Abrams 38 Cynthia L. Greene 39 Steve Mariotti 40 Robert D. Hisrich 41 Suna Løwe Nielsen, Kim Klyver, Majbritt Rostgaard Evald, Torben Bager

25 Gail Hiduke, J. D. Ryan 26 Timothy Hatten

23 Gareth Jones, Jennifer George 24 Stephen Key

22 Kathleen R. Allen

21 Stephen Spinelli, Rob Adams

19 Leonard Schlesinger, Charles Kiefer with Paul Brown 20 Alexander Osterwalder, Yves Pigneur

Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship Corporate entrepreneurship About entrepreneurship Innovation and entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship and small business Entrepreneurship: A real-world approach Entrepreneurship: Ideas in action Entrepreneurship: Owning your future Managing innovation and entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship in theory and practice

Just start: Take action, embrace uncertainty, create the future Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century Launching new ventures: An entrepreneurial approach Essentials of contemporary management One simple idea for startups and entrepreneurs: Live your dreams and create your own profitable company Small business: An entrepreneur’s business plan Small business management: Entrepreneurship and beyond Entrepreneurship

5th 11th

2nd 3rd

3rd

2nd

9th 5th

5th

6th

9th

2007 2014 2012 2012 2011 2012 2013 2011 2010 2012 2012 2010 2014 2012

Palgrave Macmillan M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Edward Elgar Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Palgrave Macmillan Edward Elgar Wiley Palgrave Macmillan The Planning Shop Cengage Learning Pearson Sage Edward Elgar

2011 Wiley

2014 Cengage Learning 2012 Cengage Learning

2013 McGraw-Hill 2013 McGraw-Hill

2012 Cengage Learning

2012 McGraw-Hill

2012 Harvard Business Review Press 2010 Wiley

Addressing the Challenges of Future Entrepreneurship Education 47

57 Thomas J. Dean

Jeffrey Cornwall Kathleen Allen Frank Hoy, Pramodita Sharma Jeffrey J. Reuer, Africa Arin˜o, Paul M. Olk 54 Steve Mariotti, Caroline Glackin 55 Donald F. Kuratko, Michael G. Goldsby, Jeffrey S. Hornsby 56 Steve Mariotti, Caroline Glackin

50 51 52 53

49 Arthur C. Brooks

47 Minet Schindehutte, Michael H. Morris, Leyland F. Pitt 48 Gerard George, Adam J. Bock

46 Donald F. Kuratko, Jeffrey S. Hornsby

45 Jonathan Cagan, Craig M. Vogel

44 Richard Stutely

43 Norman M. Scarborough

42 Jay Mitra

Author(s)

Entrepreneurship & small business management Innovation acceleration: Transforming organizational thinking Entrepreneurship: Starting and operating a small business Sustainable venturing: Entrepreneurial opportunity in the transition to a sustainable economy

Entrepreneurship, innovation, and regional development Essentials of entrepreneurship and small business management The definitive business plan: The fast track to intelligent planning for executives and entrepreneurs Creating breakthrough products: Revealing the secrets that drive global innovation New venture management: The entrepreneur’s roadmap Rethinking marketing: The entrepreneurial imperative Inventing entrepreneurs: Technology innovators and their entrepreneurial journey Social entrepreneurship: A modern approach to social value creation Bootstrapping Entrepreneurship for scientists and engineers Entrepreneurial family firms Entrepreneurial alliances

Title

Table 1. (Continued )

3rd

2nd

3rd

7th

Publisher

Pearson Pearson Pearson Pearson

2014 Pearson

2013 Pearson

2012 Prentice Hall 2012 Prentice Hall

2010 2010 2010 2011

2009 Pearson

2009 Pearson

2009 Pearson

2009 Pearson

2013 FT Press

2012 FT Publishing

2014 Pearson

2011 Taylor & Francis

Edition Year

48 JACK MASON AND ANA CRISTINA O. SIQUEIRA

49

Addressing the Challenges of Future Entrepreneurship Education

Table 2.

Examples of Textbooks Not Surveyed.

Authors

Title

1 Roger Martin

The design of business

2 Jeff Dyer, Hal Gregorson, Clayton Christensen 3 Daniel V. Davidson, Lynn M. Forsythe 4 J. Chris Leach, Ronald W. Melicher 5 Denis G. Arnold, Tom L. Beauchamp, Norman E. Bowie 6 Constance E. Bagley, Craig E. Dauchy

The innovators DNA The entrepreneur’s legal companion Entrepreneurial finance

Edition Year

Publisher

2009 Harvard Business Review Press 2012 Harvard Business Review Press 2011 Pearson 4th

2012 Cengage Learning

Ethical theory and business

9th

2013 Pearson

The entrepreneur’s guide to business law

4th

2012 Cengage Learning

Table 3. Concepts. Acquisition Bankruptcy Branding Breakeven Budgeting Business location Business model Business plan presentation Business plans Business structure Cases Compensation and benefits Competition and competitive advantage Culture Customer relationship management Decision-making Distribution Ethics Exit & harvesting Experiential learning Family business

Feasibility analysis Financial analysis Financial management Financial planning & forecasting Financial statements Financing Franchising Global/international business Government Human behavior & interaction Human resources Ideation & innovation Intellectual property

Operations Opportunities Organization Partnering Process Product development Public sector Quality Risk Sales Small business Social enterprise Strategy

Intrapreneurship Leadership Legal Management Market research Marketing Nature of entrepreneurship Negotiation

Stress Supply management Sustainability Technology Training Valuation Venture screening Women & minorities

related to identifying and developing opportunities and gathering financial resources are covered more frequently than those concepts related to managing operations. For example Operations, Quality, Distribution, and Supply Management are all in the bottom 50th percentile.

Acquisition Bankruptcy Branding Breakeven Budgeting Business location Business model Business plan presentation Business plans Business structure Cases Compensation and benefits Competition and competitive advantage Culture Customer relationship management Decision-making Distribution Ethics Exit & harvesting Experiential learning Family business

Concepts

10 6 14

48 11 42

3

3 5

13

Kuratko

5

5

18 8 41 1

27 9 9 8 7

23 14 42 5

5

1 4 11

6

15 3

8

22

5 21 15

18

3

16 13 52 2

5

2 2 7 24

5

Longenecker et al.

3

2

22 5 20

16 5

4

25 13 119

1

2 3

6 11

Hisrich, Peters, Shepherd

15

17 12 43

Bamford & Bruton

7

36

DuBrin

6

4 23 43 9

Morris, Kuratko, Covin

Example Content Coverage
Pages.

Katz & Green

3

Barringer & Ireland

Table 4.

4

4

2

5

33 1

18

Berkun Barringer

50 JACK MASON AND ANA CRISTINA O. SIQUEIRA

Feasibility analysis Financial analysis Financial management Financial planning & forecasting Financial statements Financing

21 22

5 2

8 27

9

5

17

19 21

38

15 25

15

4 5 26

1

3

10 8

18 13

48

11

3 9

3

12

10

15

Addressing the Challenges of Future Entrepreneurship Education 51

Acquisition Bankruptcy Branding Breakeven Budgeting Business location Business model Business plan presentation Business plans Business structure Cases Compensation and benefits Competition and competitive advantage Culture Customer relationship management Decision-making Distribution Ethics Exit & harvesting

Concepts

0.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.8

4.7 2.1

10.8 0.3

1.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0

12.4 2.8

10.9 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 2.6 1.6

Barringer & Ireland (%)

3.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.8

Kuratko (%)

Table 5.

0.0 5.1 1.7 1.7

0.0 0.0

0.0

8.0 0.9

4.4 2.7

1.5 0.0 0.2 0.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.9

Katz & Green (%)

0.0 0.9 3.7 2.7

0.0 3.2

0.5

9.2 0.4

2.8 2.3

0.9 0.0 0.4 0.4 1.2 4.2 0.0 0.9

Longenecker et al. (%)

0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0

3.7 0.0

1.5

10.5 2.2

1.0 5.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Morris, Kuratko, Covin (%)

0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

10.2 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

DuBrin (%)

0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1

0.0 0.0

0.0

18.1 0.0

7.1 5.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bamford & Bruton (%)

Example Relative Topics Coverage
Percent.

0.0 0.0 3.3 1.0

0.8 0.0

1.4

24.3 0.0

5.1 2.7

1.2 2.2 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2

Hisrich, Peters, Shepherd (%)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

2.0 0.0

2.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Berkun (%)

0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

2.4

0.0 0.0

15.8 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6

Barringer (%)

52 JACK MASON AND ANA CRISTINA O. SIQUEIRA

Experiential learning Family business Feasibility analysis Financial analysis Financial management Financial planning & forecasting Financial statements Financing

0.0

0.0 4.5

0.0

1.3

2.4

2.1

7.1

3.6

0.0 1.3

0.5

0.0

0.0

5.4

5.7

4.0

3.6

0.0

7.2

0.0

1.3 0.0

1.5

4.4

2.7

2.7

4.6

0.9

3.9 0.7

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.6

3.4

4.2

0.0

5.5

7.6

0.0 0.0

8.4

9.8

0.0

2.2

1.8

0.6

0.0 0.0

0.0

1.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

5.7

4.8

0.0

0.0

0.0 7.2

0.0

Addressing the Challenges of Future Entrepreneurship Education 53

Acquisition Bankruptcy Branding Breakeven Budgeting Business Location Business Model Business Plan Presentation Business Plans Business Structure Cases Compensation and Benefits Competition and Competitive Advantage Culture Customer Relationship Management Decision-Making Distribution Ethics Exit & Harvesting Experiential Learning Family Business Feasibility Analysis Financial Analysis Financial Management Financial Planning & Forecasting Financial Statements Financing Franchising Global/International Business Government Human Behavior & Interaction Human resources Ideation & innovation Intellectual Property Intrapreneurship Leadership Legal Management Market Research Marketing Nature of Entrepreneurship Negotiation Operations Opportunities Organization Partnering Process Product Development Public Sector Quality Risk Sales Small Business Social Enterprise Strategy Stress Supply Management Sustainability Technology Training Valuation Venture Screening Women & Minorities

Sum(Meyer & Crane)

Sum(Adelman & Marks)

Sum(Barringer)

Sum(Berkun)

Fig. 1.

Sum(Mariotti)

Sum(Greene)

Sum(Abrams)

Sum(Burns (2010))

Sum(Bessant & Tidd)

Sum(Bjerke)

Sum(Burns (2012))

Sum(Kariv)

Sum(Roper)

Sum(Baron)

Sum(Vozikis)

Sum(Rae)

Sum(Bygrave & Zacharakis)

Sum(Hatten)

Sum(Hiduke & Ryan)

Sum(Key)

Sum(Jones & George)

Sum(Allen (2012))

Sum(Spinelli & Adams)

Sum(Osterwalder & Pigneur)

Sum(Schlesinger, Kiefer, Br…

Sum(Baron & Shane)

Sum(Kaplan & Warren)

Sum(Rogers)

Sum(Kickul & Lyons)

Sum(Read et al)

Textbook versus Current Concept Heat Map.

Colors Max Average Min 0.00

Marking: Marking

54 JACK MASON AND ANA CRISTINA O. SIQUEIRA

Sum(Mariotti & Glackin(201…

Sum(Kuratko, Goldsby, Hor…

Sum(Mariotti & Glackin(201…

Sum(Reuer, Ariño, Olk)

Sum(Hoy & Sharma)

Sum(Allen (2010))

Sum(Cornwall)

Sum(Brooks)

Sum(George & Bock)

Sum(Schindehutte, Morris,…

Sum(Kuratko & Hornsby)

Sum(Cagan & Vogel)

Sum(Stutely)

Sum(Scarborough)

Sum(Mitra)

Sum(Nielsen, Klyver, Evald…

Sum(Hisrich)

Sum(Crane)

Sum(Hisrich, Peters, Sheph…

Sum(Bamford & Bruton)

Sum(DuBrin)

Sum(Morris, Kuratko, Covin)

Sum(Longenecker et al)

Sum(Katz & Green)

Sum(Barringer & Ireland)

Sum(Kuratko)

Addressing the Challenges of Future Entrepreneurship Education

Table 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

55

Concept Ranking by Average Coverage. Nature of entrepreneurship Cases Marketing Business plans Financing Strategy Ideation & innovation Management Opportunities Organization Process Market research Social enterprise Financial management Ethics Global/international business Business model Business structure Product development Human resources Intellectual property Financial statements Leadership Financial analysis Financial planning & forecasting Human behavior & interaction Intrapreneurship Legal Sustainability Exit & harvesting Franchising Experiential learning Valuation Technology Partnering Risk Operations Competition and competitive advantage Acquisition Business plan presentation Culture Venture screening Sales Training Stress Business location Feasibility analysis

8.3% 7.9% 5.8% 5.6% 5.5% 5.2% 4.3% 3.6% 3.5% 3.0% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

56

JACK MASON AND ANA CRISTINA O. SIQUEIRA

Table 6. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

(Continued )

Branding Customer relationship management Supply management Family business Government Compensation and benefits Distribution Small business Women & minorities Decision-making Breakeven Negotiation Budgeting Public sector Quality Bankruptcy

0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Family businesses were covered by textbooks with that focus but little for most other textbooks. Ethics was covered to some degree by many textbooks but not uniformly. Similarly, sustainability was covered by several textbooks with that focus and a few others but not uniformly by most textbooks. Negotiation doesn’t appear often as a salient topic; but it is also covered to a degree in Acquisition. Women and Minorities were covered by fewer than 20% of the textbooks. The authors make no judgment as to the appropriateness of including any of the above topics in textbooks. But one of the topics that is, in the authors’ opinion, extremely important to entrepreneurship but which is covered very lightly is Sales. Table 7 provides 16 emerging entrepreneurship concepts resulting from an initial posit plus review at the GCEC workshop and a review of recent entrepreneurship literature. The total number of data points for 57 textbooks and 16 emerging topics is 912. Table 8 provides the full results dataset. Fig. 2 is a heat map showing the coverage of each emerging topic by each textbook. In the figure, textbooks are ordered from top, most recently published (2014), to bottom, least recently (2007) published. Table 9 provides the total number of occurrences of each emerging concept in all textbooks. The heat map in Fig. 2 and total emerging concept occurrences in Table 9 revealed some insights. Among emerging concepts, Social media, including

Addressing the Challenges of Future Entrepreneurship Education

Table 7.

57

Emerging Concepts.

Guerilla marketing Business canvas Continuous development Crowd funding/sourcing Crowd sourcing Design thinking Lean Agile Networked organization Parallel development Portfolio Rapid prototyping Real options Social media Facebook Twitter Blog

Facebook, Twitter, and Blogs seem to have been relatively well covered, with increasing coverage in more recent textbooks. Most of the other topics are covered inconsistently with no clear trend in time. Business canvas, as an example of alternatives to conventional business plans, is only mentioned in two textbooks, one of which is the book by Osterwalder and Pigneur in Table 1, which is devoted rather singularly to the concept. The concept of a Portfolio of Products, Intellectual Property, or Business Options has been covered relatively well for some time although inconsistently. This survey covered 57 textbooks published by 16 publishers. While these do not constitute the universe of textbooks, they provide useful insights. The data may also support additional research. For those interested in more detailed perusal and analysis of the data, the authors will make available the full set of data and heat maps upon request.

DISCUSSION These survey results suggest recommendations for future textbook and course development. Sales and operational management topics seem to warrant greater coverage in future textbooks. The nature of entrepreneurship, while interesting from a research standpoint and fundamental

Kuratko Katz & Green Meyer & Crane Hiduke & Ryan Vozikis Hisrich Scarborough Dean DuBrin Crane Jones & George Key Bjerke Cagan & Vogel Mariotti & Glackin Barringer & Ireland Kickul & Lyons Schlesinger & Kiefer with Brown Spinelli & Adams Allen Hatten Baron Roper Burns

Author

2

1

1 2

2012 2012 2012 2012 2012

1

1

1

2012

2012

2012

2

2012

1

5

7

1

2

22

3

1

7

1

6

1

3 3

Rapid Prototyping

3

1

3 1

7

2 5

3

7

Agile

1

Business Canvas

8

3

1

1

2 3

1 4 3

2

1

Continuous Development

Emerging Concept Occurrences.

Design Thinking

Table 8. “Guerilla” Marketing

3

1 1

2

1 1

Real Options

2013

2013 2013 2013

2014 2014 2014 2014 2013 2013 2013

2

Lean

2014

1

Parallel Development

4 4

Emerging Concepts

2014 2014 2014

Published

1

2

1

2

3

5

2

1

7

9

1 2 2

7

5 10

10

2

2

3

3

2 1

2

24

3

9 3

1

3

19

3

3

14 6 5

1 8 25

23

6 14 3

Networked Crowd Portfolio Twitter Organization Sourcing/ Funding

3

15 5 1

2

7

25

16

2

15

5 3 2

2 18

21

9 17 2

Blog

2

13 5

7

11

4

24

45 26 2

6 44

35

14 16 1

Social Media

9

17 6 1

4

4

21

8

2

4

22 6 5

2 21 49

42

6 26 11

Facebook

Abrams Greene Nielsen, Klyver, Evald & Bager Stutely Mariotti & Glackin Kuratko, Goldsby, Hornsby Morris, Kuratko, Covin Bamford & Bruton Read, Sarasvath, Dew, Wiltbank, Ohlsson Bygrave & Zacharakis Kariv Bessant & Tidd Mitra Reuer, Arin˜o, Olk Longenecker, Petty, Moore, Palich Hisrich, Peters, Shepherd Berkun Adelman & Marks

1

2010 2010

2010

2010

2011 2011

2011 2011

3 3

1 1

1

2011

2011

1

2011

1

1

3

2011

1

2

8

1

1

1

2012

2012 2012

2012 2012 2012

1

7

1

7

2

10

1

2

2

1

4

6 4

34

1

2

2

2

4

3

2 3

5

17

3

4

6

1

3

1

3

5 4

4 1

1

3

17

1

2

3

1

1

2

2 15

5 1

1

2

2

1

3

14 2

7

6

3

1 4

6

1

3

4

3 9

11 1 1

Kaplan & Warren Osterwalder & Pigneur Burns Mariotti Cornwall Allen Hoy & Sharma Barringer Rogers Kuratko & Hornsby Schindehutte, Morris, Pitt George & Bock Brooks Baron & Shane Rae

Author

2

“Guerilla” Marketing

3

1

47

Business Canvas

2

Continuous Development

2007

2

1

1

1

1

1

7

6

6

4

2009 2008

2

1

1

2

1

Networked Crowd Portfolio Twitter Organization Sourcing/ Funding

16

2

1

2

1

Agile

(Continued )

Rapid Prototyping

Table 8. Design Thinking

2009

1

4

Real Options

3

1

Lean

2009

3

1

Parallel Development

3

Emerging Concepts

2009 2009 2009

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

2010

2010

Published

1

1

17

1

3

4 15 9 2

3

Blog

4

1 10 1 2

1

Social Media

5

3 5 3

2 5 2

3

3

Facebook

2014, Vozikis 2014, Scarborough 2014, Meyer & Crane 2014, Kuratko 2014, Katz & Green 2014, Hisrich 2014, Hiduke & Ryan 2014, Dean 2013, Mariotti & Glackin 2013, Key 2013, Jones & George 2013, DuBrin 2013, Crane 2013, Cagan & Vogel 2013, Bjerke 2012, Stutely 2012, Spinelli & Adams 2012, Schlesinger & Kiefer with Brown 2012, Roper 2012, Nielsen, Klyver, Evald & Bager 2012, Mariotti & Glackin 2012, Kuratko, Goldsby, Hornsby 2012, Kickul & Lyons 2012, Hatten 2012, Greene 2012, Burns 2012, Barringer & Ireland 2012, Baron 2012, Allen 2012, Abrams 2011, Reuer, Ariño, Olk 2011, Read, Sarasvath, Dew, Wiltbank, Ohls… 2011, Morris, Kuratko, Covin 2011, Mitra 2011, Kariv 2011, Bygrave & Zacharakis 2011, Bessant & Tidd 2011, Bamford & Bruton 2010, Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010, Mariotti 2010, Longenecker, Petty, Moore, Palich 2010, Kaplan & Warren 2010, Hoy & Sharma 2010, Hisrich, Peters, Shepherd 2010, Cornwall 2010, Burns 2010, Berkun 2010, Allen 2010, Adelman & Marks 2009, Schindehutte, Morris, Pitt 2009, Rogers 2009, Kuratko & Hornsby 2009, George & Bock 2009, Brooks 2009, Barringer 2008, Baron & Shane 2007, Rae

Sum(Blog)

Fig. 2.

Sum(Rapid prototyping)

Sum(Agile)

Sum(Business canvas)

Sum (Continuous development)

Sum (Networked Organization)

Sum(Crowd sourcing/ funding)

Sum(Portfolio)

Sum(Twitter)

Emerging Concept versus Textbook Heat Map.

Colors Max Average 0.00

Marking: Marking

Addressing the Challenges of Future Entrepreneurship Education 61

Sum(Parallel development)

Sum(Lean)

Sum(Real Options)

Sum(″Guerilla″ Marketing)

Sum(Design thinking)

Sum(Social media)

Sum (Facebook)

62

JACK MASON AND ANA CRISTINA O. SIQUEIRA

Table 9. Parallel development Lean Real options “Guerilla” marketing Design thinking Rapid prototyping Agile Business canvas Continuous development Networked organization Crowd sourcing/funding Portfolio Twitter Blog Social media Facebook

Total Emerging Concept. 11 17 19 25 44 45 47 48 49 60 62 125 180 280 299 357

Note: Occurrences
All Textbooks.

understanding, has less immediate direct practical impact on successfully running small and entrepreneurial organizations. It was the topic with the greatest coverage. New concepts trends, other than those associated with social media were covered inconsistently among the textbooks surveyed. It is difficult to predict what new concepts will emerge in the coming years. But the coverage of new concepts in the textbooks surveyed suggests that authors use some more systematic mechanism to identify emerging concepts and incorporate them. Examples of approaches that could be applied include surveys of recent literature, polling of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship educators, and drawing on experience at start-up community events and activities, such as start-up weekends. One clear trend is the increased interest in more experiential learning. This has also been stressed by the AACSB (2012). Experiential learning is an educational method, not a topic. But the team did see mention of experiential learning explicitly in 10 of the texts, as noted in Table 4 and Fig. 1. This consisted of suggesting experiential exercises at the end of chapters. The team did not observe instances of experiential methods in other, more integrated ways. In the future, if the trend continues, it will be important to integrate such activities more comprehensively and seamless into textbooks or other instructional media. The survey results suggest future research opportunities. There has been limited research into instructional material content. Research by Edelman

Addressing the Challenges of Future Entrepreneurship Education

63

et al. (2008) identifies and correlates topics to start-up activities performed by nascent entrepreneurs. No such relationships were explored in the research documented in this chapter. An understanding of small business failure causes and the relevance of instructional topics to those failure causes would be useful in developing strategies for greater success of startup organizations. Absent or alongside detailed objective small business failure data, an approach involving a survey of a large panel of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship researchers could be used to refine and to develop the relevance of the topic areas surveyed herein.

REFERENCES Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2012). Business accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards Currie, R. R., & Pandher, G. (2013). Management education journals’ rank and tier by active scholars. Academy of Management Education & Learning, 12(2), 194
218. Driscoll, C., & Tesfayohannes, M. (2009). “Big” business ethics textbooks: Where do small business and entrepreneurship fit. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 6, 25
42. Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T. S., & Brush, C. G. (2008). Entrepreneurship education: Correspondence between practices of nascent entrepreneurs and textbook prescriptions for success. Academy of Management Education & Learning, 7(1), 56
70. Kane, T. (2010). The importance of startups in job creation and job destruction. Kauffman Foundation Research Series. Retrieved from http://www.kauffman.org/∼/media/kauff man_org/research%20reports%20and%20covers/2010/07/firm_formation_importance_ of_startups.pdf Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education 1876
1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 282
300. Kent, C. A. (1989). The treatment of entrepreneurship in principles of economics textbooks. Journal of Economic Education, 153
164. Kent, C. A., & Rushing, F. W. (1999). Coverage of entrepreneurship in principles of economics textbooks: An update. Journal of Economic Education, 30(2), 184
188. Magelli, P. J., & Kehoe, C. (2006). Kauffman panel on entrepreneurship curriculum and higher education research report. Kauffman Foundation. Magelli, P. J., & Kehoe, C. (2012). Kauffman panel on entrepreneurship curriculum and higher education research report. Kauffman Foundation. Moss, T. W., & Gras, D. (2012). A Review and assessment of social entrepreneurship textbooks. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(3), 518
527. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479
510. Spotfire. (2013). TIBCO Software. Retrieved from http://spotfire.tibco.com/ Tesfayohannes, M., & Driscoll, C. (2010). Integrating ethics into entrepreneurship education: An explanatory textbook analysis. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 13, 85
106.

64

JACK MASON AND ANA CRISTINA O. SIQUEIRA

Torrance, W. E. F. (2013). Entrepreneurship education comes of age on campus. Kauffman Foundation, Conference Report. Retrieved from http://www.kauffman.org/∼/media/ kauffman_org/research%20reports%20and%20covers/2013/08/eshipedcomesofage_ report.pdf Tracey, P. (2012). Introduction: Digital resources and textbooks for teaching social entrepreneurship and Innovation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 511. Wakefield, S. (2012). Supply of entrepreneurship programs increases with demand for startup knowledge. AACSB. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/enewsline/supply-ofentrepreneurship-programs-increases-with-demand-for-startup-knowledge.asp

DO UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAMS INFLUENCE STUDENTS’ ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOR? AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN SINGAPORE Yuen-Ping Ho, Pei-Chin Low and Poh-Kam Wong ABSTRACT This paper investigates empirically the link between entrepreneurship education programs and students’ entrepreneurial behavior, with a particular focus on the distinction between experiential and classroom-based education. We introduce a more refined measure of entrepreneurial engagement that combines entrepreneurship intention and actual steps taken to realize that intention. Using data from a survey of 836 students at the National University of Singapore (NUS), we utilize linear regression models to examine not only the direct effect of entrepreneurship

Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, Volume 24, 65
87 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1048-4736/doi:10.1108/S1048-473620140000024003

65

66

YUEN-PING HO ET AL.

education program participation on entrepreneurial engagement, but also its possible interaction effect with several psychological constructs drawn from the Theory of Planned Behavior. The results show that participation in university entrepreneurship programs, especially experiential-learning programs, has significant positive influence on students’ entrepreneurial engagement. Moreover, the effect of program participation is significantly moderated by the students’ attitudes and perceptions. The findings have important practical implications for universities in designing entrepreneurship programs on campus. The study supports the call to move toward hands-on experiential programs as a more effective way for educational institutions to influence students’ entrepreneurial behavior and encourage venture creation activity on campus. We also contribute to the literature by confirming the impact of entrepreneurship education not only on entrepreneurial intentions but also on the concrete steps taken by students toward venture creation. Keywords: University entrepreneurship programs; entrepreneurial behavior; entrepreneurial intentions; entrepreneurial engagement; experiential programs; experiential learning

INTRODUCTION Studies have shown that student’s entrepreneurship intentions and consequently, their propensity for entrepreneurial behavior, are shaped by their attitudes toward entrepreneurship (van Gelderen et al., 2008). Apart from the individual factors that shape the students’ entrepreneurial behavior, many other studies have suggested that entrepreneurial intentions can be stimulated through education. Vanevenhoven and Ligouri (2013) through their global, longitudinal study showed that entrepreneurship education motivates students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007) showed that entrepreneurship programs raise entrepreneurial attitudes and intention, and increase the chances that students will actually attempt an entrepreneurial career at some point in their lives. In addition, Peterman and Kennedy (2003) reported that participation in enterprise education programs positively increases perception of the desirability and feasibility of starting a business among students. According to Katz (2003), the number of colleges and universities that offer courses related to entrepreneurship has grown from a handful in the

Do Entrepreneurship Programs Influence Students’ Behavior?

67

1970s to 1,600 in the United States alone. The GEM Special Report on Education and Training (2010) reported that entrepreneurship education and training has grown rapidly in recent decades among the nations surveyed. By the mid-2000s, Solomon (2007) observed a shift to using technology and guest speakers in entrepreneurship courses, indicating more collaborative sharing methods as replacements to traditional classroom approaches. This study seeks to investigate the link between entrepreneurship education programs and students’ entrepreneurial behavior, using data from a survey of over 800 students at the National University of Singapore (NUS). NUS has offered entrepreneurship education since the late 1980s. Over the years, the programs have evolved and increased in quantity and quality. Currently, a wide range of entrepreneurship programs are offered across the NUS campus to students from all faculties. These include traditional lectures and seminars as well as more experiential programs such as mentoring sessions and business plan competitions. NUS has also pioneered a new form of entrepreneurship experiential learning through its overseas internship programs, where students undergo one-year apprenticeship in high-tech start-ups while attending entrepreneurship courses at partner universities. With the focus on NUS, this study empirically examines if entrepreneurship programs have a significant influential effect on students’ entrepreneurial behavior. In particular, we are interested in whether experiential-learning programs are more effective in stimulating student entrepreneurship compared to classroom-based programs. This paper is organized as follows. The next section briefly discusses the literature on the determinants of entrepreneurial intention in individuals, paying particular attention to the role of entrepreneurship education. We then present an overview of entrepreneurship education programs offered at NUS. The subsequent sections develop the key research questions and hypotheses, and describe the methodology used, including the construction of measures. Next, the empirical results are presented and finally, implications and conclusions are discussed.

LITERATURE REVIEW: FACTORS INFLUENCING ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION Theory of Planned Behavior Entrepreneurial intention is the precursor to entrepreneurial behavior, when individuals take steps to create new ventures. To understand the

68

YUEN-PING HO ET AL.

drivers of an individual’s intentions and subsequent behavior, entrepreneurship researchers have turned to the social psychology literature where the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 2002) has been used as the theoretical basis for many studies of human behavior. According to the theory, human behavior is guided by three types of beliefs, namely behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs. Behavioral beliefs refer to the expected outcomes of a behavior that produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the behavior; normative beliefs refer to perceived expectations of other people that result in perceived social pressure or subjective norms; and control beliefs refer to the presence of factors which may facilitate or impede the behavior, affecting how the individual perceives the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior. The combination of this set of beliefs leads to the formation of a behavioral intention. When given sufficient degree of actual control over the behavior, people are expected to carry out their intentions when there are opportunities. Thus, intention is assumed to be the immediate antecedent of behavior. The theory forms the basis of many theoretical and empirical studies of entrepreneurial intention in individuals (Krueger & Carsrud, 1993; Lee & Wong, 2004; Shapero, 1982; Van Gelderen et al., 2008). The combination of beliefs leads to the formation of entrepreneurship intention, which is the fundamental element to explain entrepreneurial behavior and also indicates the effort to carry out the entrepreneurial behavior (Linan, RodriguezCohard, & Rueda-Cantuche, 2011). Both individual and institutional factors may shape the three types of beliefs that guide the formation of entrepreneurial intention in an individual. Individual factors include the individual’s psychological predisposition and attributes, known collectively as attitudes (Souitaris et al., 2007), and the individual’s background and demographic profile (Crant, 1996; Wang & Wong, 2004). Institutional factors may include environmentrelated constructs such as the ease of obtaining financing (Scholtens, 1999) and organizational factors that affect job satisfaction (Lee, Wong, Foo, & Leung, 2011). The key institutional factor of interest in this paper, which is especially relevant in the context student entrepreneurship, is entrepreneurship education.

The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education The scope of entrepreneurship programs at universities has grown tremendously over the years (Katz, 2003). This expansion has been accompanied

Do Entrepreneurship Programs Influence Students’ Behavior?

69

by increasing scrutiny of entrepreneurship education and its effectiveness. The empirical literature appears to advocate for the provision of entrepreneurship programs on campus. Several studies have shown that entrepreneurship programs raise the level of entrepreneurial interest among students (Vanevenhoven & Ligouri, 2013; Souitaris et al., 2007; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003). Additionally, Sanchez (2011) showed that apart from raising entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurship programs also strengthen students’ self-efficacy, pro-activeness, and inclination toward risk-taking. Similarly, Thursby, Fuller, and Thursby (2009) reported that students who have attended entrepreneurship programs possess higher competencies with more positive perceptions of the multidisciplinary capabilities needed to operate in a technological business environment. DeTienne and Chandler (2004) also found that students learn processes of opportunity identification and generate more innovative ideas after attending entrepreneurship courses. However, von Graevenitz, Harhoff, & Weber (2010) showed that even though the entrepreneurship courses have a significant positive effect on students’ entrepreneurial skills and self-confidence, the courses reduce the number of students with founding intention. In recent years, studies have proposed that universities offer more experiential programs which allow students to be exposed to actual entrepreneurial environments as they learn on the ground (Vanevenhoven, 2013) or are guided by experienced entrepreneurs who had gone through the founding challenges and encountered failures (Kuratko, 2005). Rasmussen and Sorheim (2006) observed that entrepreneurship education which is focused less on classroom setting and more on learning-by-doing activities in group or network context at a Swedish universities resulted in more than 200 student start-ups during a period of five years. Vanevenhoven and Ligouri (2013) reported similar findings that overall entrepreneurial education offerings motivate students’ entrepreneurial intentions and self-efficacy. Interestingly, they also found that while the number of entrepreneurship offerings overall showed a significant positive correlation with the entrepreneurial behaviors of students, the number of extra-curricular activities specifically was not related to any of the behaviors. However, the authors did not provide possible explanations for this finding on the insignificance of extra-curricular entrepreneurship offerings. We suggest that the effects of extra-curricular activities may have been moderated by the course-based offerings, an interaction effect not examined in the study. The study also aggregated a number of different extra-curricular activities
business plan competitions, student clubs, guest speaker sessions and site visits, among

70

YUEN-PING HO ET AL.

others
into a single variable, hence possibly masking the effects of specific activities. This warrants further study to explore and confirm the relationships. In summary, the literature generally suggests that entrepreneurship education can effectively influence entrepreneurial intentions. However, there is relatively little empirical work specifically on experiential learning, with available evidence being mixed as to the impact of such programs. This is in part due to differing outcome measures being used, and points to a need for more research into this area.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP SUPPORT ECOSYSTEM AT THE NUS In this section, we provide a brief profile of the NUS which has since the late 1990s placed great emphasis on developing an “enterprise ecosystem” to foster and promote entrepreneurship on campus. This forms the reference point for our empirical analysis, providing an institutional context for examining the impact of entrepreneur-focused conditions on entrepreneurial propensity among students. In particular, we describe the entrepreneurship programs at NUS that nurture and motivate students’ entrepreneurship intentions and aspirations. Established in 1905, the NUS is the oldest and largest public university in Singapore with a total student enrollment of over 37,000. The late 1990s saw a shift toward an “entrepreneurial university” model at NUS (Wong, Ho, & Singh, 2007), with a new emphasis on the third mission of becoming involved in the commercialization sphere of the economy. A new NUS Enterprise cluster was formed, with divisions within the cluster carrying out university activities pertaining to entrepreneurship, including entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship promotion programs. Through NUS Enterprise, the university strives to create a supportive and innovative environment to promote creative enterprise within its community. In supporting the third mission of NUS and to equip students with entrepreneurial skills and mindsets to thrive in a competitive global economy, a number of innovative programs are offered. These have been documented in detail by Wong, Ho, and Singh (2011) and the key initiatives are summarized and updated below.

Do Entrepreneurship Programs Influence Students’ Behavior?

71

Entrepreneurship Education Initiatives of NUS Entrepreneurship Center (NEC) NEC, a division of NUS Enterprise, was established to promote entrepreneurial learning through experiential educational programs and outreach activities; provide entrepreneurship support services to aspiring NUS professors, students, and alumni wanting to start up their own ventures; and advance knowledge in policy and practice of technology venturing through research. Similar to the entrepreneurship centers established in many universities, NEC offers a wide range of education programs, both within the classroom and extra-curricular. A distinguishing feature of NEC’s non-classroom educational activities was an explicit attempt to help evangelize and catalyze the development of the external venture ecosystem beyond NUS, and to make NUS a magnet for entrepreneurial network activities that link the NUS community with the external venture ecosystem. For example, NEC pioneered the annual national business plan competition, Startup@Singapore in 1999, which is open to the entire Singapore community. NEC also launched a Technopreneurship Minor Program that was open to all NUS undergraduate students, albeit with a strong focus on students in science and engineering. The goal was to make students in technical disciplines more business-savvy and entrepreneurially minded, and alleviate the disparities between students in business and technical disciplines in terms of opportunities to learn entrepreneurial skills. Subsequently, NEC launched another experiential-learning program called Innovative Local Enterprise Achiever Development (iLEAD) that offers NUS undergraduates a seven-month internship opportunity in selected local high-tech start-ups, followed by a two-week overseas study visit trip to leading international high-tech hubs. With additional funding support in 2009, the center launched several other educational initiatives to broaden its entrepreneurship education offerings. These include an experiential-learning initiative for PhD students called the Extra Chapter Challenge, which offers a six-month fellowship extension to PhD students who have made discoveries or inventions in their thesis research that have commercial potential. Another innovative initiative is the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Practicum grant scheme that provides seed-funding of up to S$10,000 each to students to develop their innovative ideas into viable product prototypes or business plans. A third initiative involves collaboration with Grameen Creative Lab to provide

72

YUEN-PING HO ET AL.

incubation and educational training for social innovators and entrepreneurs to launch social businesses with scalable, sustainable social impacts on low-income groups at the Bottom of the Pyramid. More recently, NEC organized the first Lean LaunchPad program in Singapore (LLP@Singapore), with Jerry Engel, Founding Executive Director Emeritus, Lester Center for Entrepreneurship at U.C. Berkeley and Steve Blank, who developed the LLP curriculum for the National Science Foundation in the United States. The LLP is a boot-camp where participants learn critical elements of the start-up process, including understanding the customer, validating ideas, and searching for the right business model. The LLP adopts a “flipped classroom” approach, as the students learn by getting out of the classroom and interviewing potential customers, partners, competitors and investors, in order to obtain feedback on their hypotheses and business proposals. On top of these, NEC also provides various entrepreneurship supports to aspiring entrepreneurs through mentoring, funding support, networking, investor-matching, legal and accounting clinics.

The NUS Overseas College (NOC) Program The NOC program was introduced in 2001 as an initiative that integrates both dimensions of globalism and entrepreneurship. The basic concept of the NOC program was to send the entrepreneurially minded NUS undergraduate students to different entrepreneurial hubs in the world to work as interns in high-tech start-up companies for up to one year, during which time they would also take courses related to entrepreneurship at partner universities in each of the regions. In essence, the NOC program represented an experiment in learning entrepreneurship by “immersion,” that is; by immersing students as “apprentices” in high-tech start-ups or growth enterprises in foreign locations to expose them to the tacit aspects of entrepreneurial practice and foreign business culture. So far, the NOC program has been launched in Silicon Valley and Philadelphia in the United States, Stockholm in Sweden, Shanghai and Beijing in China, various locations in India and Tel Aviv in Israel, with the latest new destination being New York. Additionally, NUS and NUS Enterprise also provides incubation space, seed-funding, and a wealth of learning opportunities and advice from industry leaders through programs such as Enterprise House, a themed residence for students who are working on or running their own start-ups, and NUS Enterprise Incubator, a one-stop access for start-ups and

Do Entrepreneurship Programs Influence Students’ Behavior?

73

entrepreneurs to the resources they need to effectively develop and market solutions, as well as network with partners and investors.

RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES The overarching research question in this study is whether the range of entrepreneurship programs offered at NUS has significantly influenced students to be more entrepreneurial, in terms of both having higher levels of intention and being more involved in venture creation activities. This combination of entrepreneurial intention and activity is termed “entrepreneurial engagement” in our study and the derivation of the construct is described fully in the section on methodology. Several studies have shown the positive effect of generic entrepreneurship education on students’ entrepreneurial interest (Raposo, Ferreira, Do Paco, & Rodrigues, 2008; Souitaris et al., 2007). By conferring knowledge, familiarity and in some cases, direct assistance, such programs influence students’ perceptions of and readiness for entrepreneurship. As such, we expect that participation in university entrepreneurship programs would increase the propensity for students to engage in entrepreneurship. Hypothesis 1: Students who have attended university entrepreneurship programs will have higher level of entrepreneurial engagement. While the literature has extensively examined entrepreneurship programs in general, there is a lack of empirical evidence specifically linking experiential entrepreneurial education to students’ level of entrepreneurial intention. The findings from the few extant studies are mixed or address entrepreneurship skills of students rather than intentions. Given the expansion of experiential-learning programs globally as well as specifically at NUS, and the more extensive and specialized resources required to offer such programs, it is timely to investigate their relative effectiveness in stimulating entrepreneurship activities. We posit that programs which provide opportunities for “hands-on” entrepreneurship experience would be more influential than classroom-based programs. Hypothesis 2: Experiential programs have a stronger impact than classroom-based programs on students’ level of entrepreneurial engagement. Institutional factors such as education programs do not operate independently when influencing social behavior. The effectiveness of university

74

YUEN-PING HO ET AL.

programs in encouraging student entrepreneurship also depends on factors that are particular to individual students, such as their demographic profile, family background, and psychological perceptions. As such, we hypothesize broadly that Hypothesis 3: The effect of entrepreneurship programs on the level of entrepreneurial engagement is moderated by the individual student’s background and attitudes. Under this umbrella hypothesis, we develop several sub-hypotheses pertaining to how the effect of entrepreneurship education is moderated by different individual factors. Individual factors in our analysis are captured by the students’ background and a set of attitude constructs derived from Ajzen’s (2002) Theory of Planned Behavior. These constructs reflect the three types of beliefs in the theory
behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs. Behavioral beliefs are measured firstly by the student’s background, namely whether the student has parents who are entrepreneurial business owners. A number of studies have found that entrepreneurial or selfemployed parents influence the entrepreneurial interest and career choice of their children (Crant, 1996; De Wit & Van Winden, 1989). Two theoretical models have been forwarded to explain this effect: the parental role model and the family support model, with many studies confirming the former over the latter. An earlier study on Singapore university students by Wang and Wong (2004) similarly found a positive correlation and supported the parental role model, while rejecting the family support model. This is in line with the notion that behavioral beliefs about entrepreneurship are reinforced for those with entrepreneurial family backgrounds, because students look to their entrepreneur parents as positive examples of entrepreneurial behavior. A second measure of behavioral beliefs is the student’s attitudes toward entrepreneurship, namely the degree to which the student views entrepreneurship in a positive light. Underlying this set of attitudes are psychological and personality traits unique to individual students, such as the degree of risk aversion (Cunningham, Gerrard, Chiang, Lim, & Siew, 1995) and pro-activeness (Crant, 1996). As concluded by Carsrud, Brannback, Elfving, and Brandt (2009), people shape their intentions to become entrepreneurs when they possess favorable attitudes toward entrepreneurial acts. To summarize, students with entrepreneurial family backgrounds and who are positively disposed toward entrepreneurship expect positive outcomes from entrepreneurial behavior. As such, these individual factors

Do Entrepreneurship Programs Influence Students’ Behavior?

75

would strengthen the influence of university programs on students’ decision-making, leading to the following sub-hypotheses: Hypothesis 3a: The effect of entrepreneurship programs on the level of entrepreneurial engagement is positively moderated by existence of students’ entrepreneurial family background. Hypothesis 3b: The effect of entrepreneurship programs on the level of entrepreneurial engagement is positively moderated by students’ positive impression of entrepreneurship. Normative beliefs are measured by the importance placed by students on the opinions of other people as they pertain to entrepreneurship as a career choice. Because entrepreneurship is still largely seen as a high-risk endeavor especially in an Asian society like Singapore’s, students who are strongly influenced by the opinion of others tend to be more reluctant to choose entrepreneurship as a career because it deviates from an accepted norm. As such, this would weaken the influence of university entrepreneurship programs. Consequently, we arrive at the sub-hypothesis that Hypothesis 3c: The effect of entrepreneurship programs on the level of entrepreneurial engagement is negatively moderated by the importance placed by students on the opinions of other people. Control beliefs are measured by the student’s perceived self-efficacy in various aspects of entrepreneurship. The concept of self-efficacy is wellestablished as an antecedent for entrepreneurial behavior (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). Students with greater confidence in their own competence will be more ready to undertake the challenges of entrepreneurship. As such, greater self-efficacy would strengthen the influence of university entrepreneurship programs. Therefore, our last sub-hypothesis is that Hypothesis 3d: The effect of entrepreneurship programs on the level of entrepreneurial engagement is positively moderated by the level of students’ perceived self-efficacy. Apart from the students’ attitudes and education, studies have found that other demographic characteristics also contribute to raising entrepreneurial intention levels. The gender (Minniti & Nardone, 2007) and age (Levesque & Minniti, 2006) of students are shown to play a role in affecting students’ interest in entrepreneurship ventures. A university environment that encourages entrepreneurship and innovation also plays a role in promoting entrepreneurial intentions among students (Sieger, Fueglistaller, & Zellweger, 2011).

76

YUEN-PING HO ET AL.

These additional measures are included as control variables and to improve goodness-of-fit of the analysis model.

METHODOLOGY The dataset used for analysis is drawn from a survey of full-time students at the NUS, undertaken as part of the Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students’ Survey (GUESSS). GUESSS is an international research project that investigates students’ entrepreneurial attitudes, intentions and activities across the world. The project was founded at the Swiss Research Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland in 2003. The project has completed five data collection waves with the most recent one done in 2011. GUESSS 2011 was administered through a common web-based questionnaire. More than 93,000 students from 489 institutions in 26 countries participated in the 2011 study. The sample used in this study consists of a total of 836 students from NUS, with 400 male and 436 female students. The median age of the student is 21 years old. Among them, 101 students are from the NUS Business School while the remaining 735 students are from other non-business faculties. The GUESSS questionnaire solicits information on the students’ participation in a broad range of university entrepreneurship programs, from traditional classroom-based education to experiential programs. Additionally, a range of questions seeks to ascertain students’ interest and involvement in entrepreneurship activities. In many studies, entrepreneurial intention is seen as the antecedent of entrepreneurial behavior. These studies typically empirically investigate a single measure of entrepreneurial intention (Raposo et al., 2008; Vanevenhoven & Ligouri, 2013). One distinctive feature of our study is that we use a refined measure of entrepreneurial behavior. Termed “entrepreneurial engagement”, our proposed measure combines intention levels with concrete steps taken by students toward venture creation. We utilize linear regression models with students’ level of entrepreneurial engagement as the dependent variable and entrepreneurship education program participation as the predictor of interest. In addition to entrepreneurship education, the regression analysis model includes psychological constructs developed by the GUESSS project to measure the sets of beliefs

Do Entrepreneurship Programs Influence Students’ Behavior?

77

predicted by the theory of planned behavior to form intention and behavior. In this study, we examined particularly the interaction effects between entrepreneurship education and these influencing psychological factors. To improve the explanatory power of the model, other established antecedents of entrepreneurial intention, such as the personal background and family background of students are also included as additional measures.

Dependent Variable The dependent variable is entrepreneurial engagement, a measure combining entrepreneurship intention and actual venture creation activities of students. The level of entrepreneurial engagement is quantified using an entrepreneurship index modified from the measure used in the GUESSS 2011 global report (Sieger, Fueglistaller, & Zellweger, 2011). The measure of entrepreneurship engagement is constructed based on two questions. The first question measures entrepreneurial intentions in terms of how seriously students have considered becoming entrepreneurs. The lowest score of 1 is assigned to zero or sketchy intentions while the highest score of 10 is for active commitment (Table 1). The scores for this single-response question were weighted with responses to the second question which reflects the different stages of progress in the students’ entrepreneurial journey (Table 2). Every answer to this multiple-response question was assigned a score to reflect the advancement achieved to actualize the students’ entrepreneurship intentions. The more advanced and concrete steps (fund raising or deciding on date of foundation) were assigned higher scores, while the early stages of the entrepreneurship process (e.g., initial business idea) were given lower scores. An entrepreneurship index is calculated for every student combining their responses to the two questions Table 1.

Strength of Entrepreneurial Intentions.

Entrepreneurial Intentions (How Seriously Students Have Considered Becoming Entrepreneurs) Never or sketchily Repeatedly to relatively concrete Have made an explicit decision to be an entrepreneur Have concrete time plan or have already started with realization Active in an own founded company Active in at least one of the own companies

Score 1 3 5 7 8 10

78

YUEN-PING HO ET AL.

Table 2.

Steps Undertaken to Actualize Entrepreneurial Intentions.

Steps Undertaken to Actualize Entrepreneurial Intentions Nothing done so far Thought of first business ideas Formulated business plan or identified market opportunity or looked for potential partners Purchased equipment or worked on product development or discussed with potential customers Asked institutions for funding Decided on date of foundation

Score 1 3 5 7 8 10

outlined in Tables 1 and 2. The index value for each student may range from 2 (those without intention to be entrepreneurs) to 67 (those who have already taken all intermediate steps and are currently active entrepreneurs). By including both intention and actual steps taken to materialize intention, this two-prong measure is more representative of students’ commitment to entrepreneurship and level of actualized entrepreneurial intention. Importantly, this measure does not discard intention in favor of entrepreneurial activities as the sole indication of entrepreneurial behavior. We recognize that students, even those with the strongest of intentions, may face constraints such as heavy coursework loads and may be unable to act upon their intentions until they graduate. As such, our proposed measure balances both intention and actual effort to represent students’ entrepreneurial behavior. Aligned with the measures in the GUESSS project, entrepreneurship is defined as the act of creating a new business venture. Entrepreneurial intentions in the GUESSS context therefore refer specifically to students’ intentions of setting up their own businesses, rather than as a general indication of positive attitudes or interest. Similarly, the steps outlined in the entrepreneurship journey in GUESSS are those heading toward founding a selfowned company.

Independent Variables The key predictor of interest is students’ participation in a broad range of entrepreneurship programs offered by the university. The various entrepreneurship programs are categorized into two groups; firstly,

Do Entrepreneurship Programs Influence Students’ Behavior?

traditional education.

classroom-based

programs,

and

secondly,

79

experiential

Participation in Classroom-Based Entrepreneurship Programs. Student participation in classroom-based entrepreneurship programs, such as lectures and seminars, is represented in binary form, with value 1 if the student attended at least one program and 0 if the student did not attend any program. Participation in Experiential-Learning Entrepreneurship Programs. Student participation in experiential education in the form of workshops, mentoring, coaching, and networking sessions is represented in binary form, with value 1 if the student participated in at least one experiential program and 0 if the student did not participate in any program. Climate at University. The students evaluated the climate at university in terms of how supportive it is for students to become entrepreneurs on a 7-point Likert scale, with higher points indicating perceived favorable entrepreneurship environment at university. Family Background. The family background measure indicates the entrepreneurial experience of the student’s parents. The presence of family entrepreneurial experience, in that either one or both of the parents have previously been or are currently self-employed business owners, is represented by a value of 1. A value of 0 represents parents with no entrepreneurial experience. Impression of Entrepreneurship. The students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship are measured by their implied impression of entrepreneurship; if entrepreneurship confers advantages or satisfactions, and the attractiveness of entrepreneurship as a career. Each impression item was measured on a 7-point Likert scale, with higher points for more favorable impressions. The construct used in the regression model is the average of ratings given to different possible impressions of entrepreneurship. The construct reliability was confirmed with Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.934 for the four items measuring impression of entrepreneurship. Importance of Others’ Opinion. This measure indicates the importance placed by students on the opinions of their parents, family, and friends in their lives. The importance of each group’s opinions was rated on a Likert scale of 7 points, where higher points mean greater importance placed. The regression analysis uses on a scale construct taking the mean of the

80

YUEN-PING HO ET AL.

importance ratings given to the various groups of people. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale comprising the three items is 0.836. Competence. The students rated the perception of their own competence in performing various entrepreneurship-related roles or tasks on a 7-point Likert scale, with higher ratings for greater certainty in their self-efficacy. The roles or tasks evaluated include conceptualization of business, products and services developments, financial and risk management, time management, and leadership responsibility. We averaged the scores for the ratings across the different roles to represent the student’s overall self-efficacy. The Cronbach’s alpha for perceived overall competence, combining 11 items is 0.899, confirming reliability of the construct. Control Variables. The three control variables included in the analysis are gender (Female = 1; Male = 0), age of the student, and course of study (Business Degree = 1; Non-Business Degree = 0). Other measures that are used in the GUESSS framework such as perceived control over environment and external parties and motive to be own boss were studied and found to be not significant. The regression results presented in this paper, hence, do not include these insignificant variables.

RESULTS Table 3 shows the profile of the NUS students used in this analysis. Among the 836 students from the sample, 48% are male students and 12% are studying for a Business degree. Slightly more than one-third of the students come from families with either or both parents who are or were previously business-owners.1 In terms of university entrepreneurship programs, 42% of the students have participated in classroom-based Table 3.

Profile of NUS Students in Dataset.

Number of respondents % male % studying for Business Degree % with entrepreneurial intention % who have taken at least one step in the entrepreneurial process % who have participated in classroom-based entrepreneurship programs % who have participated in experiential entrepreneurship programs % with entrepreneurial family background

836 47.8 12.1 34.4 26.3 41.5 34.7 34.8

Do Entrepreneurship Programs Influence Students’ Behavior?

81

programs while a smaller proportion, 35% have participated in experiential entrepreneurship programs. About a third (34%) of students expressed entrepreneurial intentions, having at least given repeated and considered thought to founding their own businesses. A smaller proportion, 26%, has acted upon their intention by performing at least one step in the entrepreneurial process. Table 4 provides the results of the linear regression explaining the students’ level of entrepreneurial engagement. Model 1 is the base model that includes only the control variables. Results showed that female students (B = −3.26, p < 0.01) are less likely to engage in entrepreneurial ventures compared to male students. Meanwhile, the students who are more senior in age (B = 0.61, p < 0.01) and students pursuing business degree (B = 3.09, p < 0.01) are more likely to be entrepreneurial. Models 2 and 3 show the main and interaction effects of the predictors. The results show that participation in experiential entrepreneurship programs has significant positive influence (B = 3.27, p < 0.01) on the level of entrepreneurial engagement. Interestingly, participation in classroom-based programs reported no significant effect (B = 0.62, p > 0.1) on the level of entrepreneurial engagement. With the insignificant impact of classroombased programs and the higher estimated coefficient value on experiential entrepreneurship programs, Hypothesis 2 that experiential programs have a stronger impact than classroom-based programs on students’ entrepreneurial engagement is supported. Importantly, participation in entrepreneurship programs, either classroom-based or experiential, is positively related to entrepreneurial engagement, confirming our Hypothesis 1 that students who have attended university entrepreneurship programs will have higher level of entrepreneurial engagement. Aligned with previous studies, family entrepreneurial experience is positively related (B = 1.42, p < 0.05) to students’ entrepreneurial engagement. Similarly, the psychological constructs were significant and exhibited the expected directions of influence. Attitude toward entrepreneurship, measured by students’ impression of entrepreneurship, is positively related (B = 1.53, p < 0.01) to entrepreneurial engagement. Subjective norm (measured by the importance placed on the opinions of other people) is significantly negative (B = −1.00, p < 0.01). Perceived behavioral control, measured by students’ self-efficacy, is also strongly and positively (B = 2.50, p < 0.01) associated with entrepreneurial engagement. In contrast, perceptions of a favorable climate toward entrepreneurship at the university is not significantly related to entrepreneurial engagement (B = −0.32, p > 0.1).

26.492*** 836

0.084

*Significant at 10%; **Significant at 5%; ***Significant at 1%.

Adjusted R2 Adjusted R2 change F-value n

−5.53** −3.26*** 0.61*** 3.09***

B 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00

Significance

Model 1

0.65 0.00 0.45 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00

0.38 3.65*** −0.22 1.45** 1.37*** −0.80** 2.29***

0.240 0.156 26.243*** 836

0.00 0.07 0.00 0.66

Significance

−17.27*** −1.27* 0.47*** 0.46

B

Model 2 B

0.28 0.30 0.07 0.00 0.01

−0.62 1.48 1.07* −1.69*** 2.39*** 0.260 0.020 19.667*** 836

0.47 0.00 0.27 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.62 3.27*** −0.32 1.42** 1.53*** −1.00*** 2.50***

0.00 0.12 0.00 0.78

Significance

Model 3

−17.53*** −1.08 0.45*** 0.28

Estimated Linear Regressions for Entrepreneurial Engagement.

Control variables Constant Gender Age Course of study Predictors Participation in classroom-based programs Participation in experiential programs Climate at university Family background Impression of entrepreneurship Importance of others’ opinion Competence Interactions Participation in experiential programs * Climate at university Participation in experiential programs * Family background Participation in experiential programs * Impression of entrepreneurship Participation in experiential programs * Importance of others’ opinion Participation in experiential programs * Competence

Table 4. 82 YUEN-PING HO ET AL.

Do Entrepreneurship Programs Influence Students’ Behavior?

83

We found that the effect of experiential program participation is significantly and positively moderated by the students’ perceived competence (B = 2.39, p < 0.01). This finding confirms our Hypothesis 3d that the effect of entrepreneurship education on the level of entrepreneurship engagement is positively moderated by students’ perceived self-efficacy. The interaction effect of experiential programs with the importance placed by students on the opinions of other people is significantly negative (B = −1.69, p < 0.01), supporting our Hypothesis 3c. The interaction effect of experiential programs with students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship is positive and weakly significant (B = 1.07, p < 0.1) while the interaction effect with family background (B = 1.48, p > 0.01) is positive but not significant. The findings suggest that behavioral beliefs have weaker moderating effects than normative and control beliefs. The findings confirm our Hypothesis 3b that the effect of entrepreneurship programs on the level of entrepreneurial engagement is positively moderated by students’ impression of entrepreneurship. However, the Hypothesis 3a that the effect of entrepreneurship programs on entrepreneurial engagement is positively moderated by students’ family background is not supported. The interaction effects of the participation in classroom-based programs were excluded from the regressions since inclusion introduced multicollinearity and the main effect is not significant. In view of the multicollinearity problem, testing of hypotheses 3a to 3d is limited only to experiential programs.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The significant and positive relationship between program participation and entrepreneurial engagement shows that entrepreneurship education encourages entrepreneurial behavior in students. This result affirms previous literature on the association between entrepreneurship education and students’ entrepreneurial intentions (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Souitaris et al., 2007). We also contribute to the literature by using a more refined measure of entrepreneurial engagement that shows the impact of entrepreneurship education not only on overall entrepreneurial intentions but also on the concrete steps taken by students toward venture creation. As the steps taken by students in their entrepreneurial journey reflect their commitment and effort to actualize their entrepreneurial aspirations, the refined

84

YUEN-PING HO ET AL.

measure represents a closer approximation of entrepreneurial behavior than any aggregate measure of entrepreneurial intention. A key finding from our analysis is that experiential learning has significantly higher impact on entrepreneurial engagement than classroom-based programs. In fact, classroom-based programs were found to be insignificant in our sample of NUS students, while experiential learning was the strongest determinant among all the included predictors of entrepreneurial engagement. In the context of NUS, this contrast could be explained by the extensive range of innovative experiential programs available to students, providing opportunities for in-depth engagement with actual start-ups and entrepreneurs. While classroom-based programs were found to be insignificant, this does not mean that entrepreneurship courses should be dropped from the university curricula. At NUS, experiential programs are designed to complement academic course content. Classroom-based courses form a useful baseline for students who participate in experiential programs. Our finding does not invalidate classroom-based entrepreneurship education but highlights the relatively stronger impact of experiential learning on entrepreneurial engagement by NUS students. Our findings appear to vindicate the decisions made by NUS to invest significant resources in immersive experiential-learning programs such as the NOC Program, the Enterprise House and the LLP@Singapore Program. Our findings on the importance of experiential learning have important practical implications for universities in designing their entrepreneurship programs on campus. In particular, our results provide empirical support for Vanevenhoven’s (2013) suggestion to send students out into actual start-up environments to help them in their entrepreneurship journey. Our results also support Rasmussen and Sorheim’s (2006) study that entrepreneurship education that focuses on active involvement by the students lead to actual venture creation. Among the social psychology constructs, perceived self-efficacy or competence was found to be the most influential in explaining entrepreneurial engagement. Taken together with the finding on the significance of entrepreneurship education, this suggests opportunities for the university to provide training to develop the entrepreneurship capabilities of students. By equipping students with the necessary expertise, skills and networks, the university can play an active role in alleviating students’ fear of failure and instilling then with greater confidence in their ability to set up their own businesses. While entrepreneurship education programs do contribute to raising the level of entrepreneurial activity among students, their overall effectiveness is also conditional on the students’ attitudes and perceptions. In particular,

Do Entrepreneurship Programs Influence Students’ Behavior?

85

the effectiveness of such programs is weaker among students for whom entrepreneurship is viewed as departing from an accepted norm and who may attach great importance to conforming to social norms. This raises a note of caution to university administrators responsible for entrepreneurship promotion. There is a limit to what can be achieved through the provision of entrepreneurship education as much is contingent upon the students’ unique personality traits. While many students may profess an interest in entrepreneurship, only certain students are predisposed to engage in entrepreneurial behavior. Rather than setting unrealistic targets, a more useful strategy for the university could be to focus on offering programs that provide meaningful hands-on entrepreneurship experience to students who demonstrate strong inclination. One limitation of our study which could be addressed with further research is possible reverse causality. Like other prior studies in the literature (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Raposo et al., 2008; Sanchez, 2011; Souitaris et al., 2007), our analysis methodology suffers from the limitation that students may have a predisposition toward entrepreneurship prior to their participation in entrepreneurship programs. In summary, the study contributes to the ongoing discussion about the form of academic entrepreneurship programs which may potentially have impact on students’ choice of an entrepreneurial career path. The study supports the call to move toward hands-on experiential programs as a more effective way for educational institutions to influence students’ entrepreneurial behavior and encourage venture creation activity on campus.

NOTE 1. Although more than one third of the students come from families with entrepreneurial background, entrepreneurship is generally perceived as high risk and less desirable for young university graduates in Singapore in the present day. This could be because the economic structure of Singapore has evolved in the last few decades, between the generation of parents and the generation of current undergraduates. Prior to the 1980s, business-ownership and self-employment were more common as there were fewer options for highly-remunerated employment. From the 1980s onwards, policy initiatives to expand the industrial manufacturing base and develop Singapore as a service hub have attracted many large multi-national companies and established foreign companies to locate here. The presence of these companies continues to create well-paying jobs for university graduates. These jobs are regarded as more prestigious and stable than entrepreneurial pursuits and thus increase the perceived opportunity costs of the latter.

86

YUEN-PING HO ET AL.

REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 1
20. Carsrud, A., Brannback, M., Elfving, J., & Brandt, K. (2009). Motivations: The entrepreneurial mind and behavior. In A. L. Carsrud & M. Brannback (Eds.), Understanding the entrepreneurial mind: Opening the black box (pp. 141
165). International Studies in Entrepreneurship, 24. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 42
49. Cunningham, B., Gerrard, P., Chiang, F. P., Lim, K. Y., & Siew, C. L. (1995). Do undergraduates have what it takes to be entrepreneurs and managers of small businesses in Singapore? Journal of Asian Business, 11(4), 35
49. De Wit, G., & Van Winden, F. A. (1989). An empirical analysis of self-employment in the Netherlands. Small Business Economics, 1(4), 263
272. DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. H. (2004). Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A pedagogical approach and empirical test. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 242
257. Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283
300. Krueger, N., & Carsrud, A. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5, 315
330. Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5
6), 411
432. Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577
598. Lee, L., Wong, P. K., Foo, M. D., & Leung, A. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions: The influence of organizational and individual factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 124
136. Lee, S. H., & Wong, P. K. (2004). An exploratory study of technopreneurial intention: A career anchor perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 7
28. Levesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2006). The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 177
194. Linan, F., Rodriguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 195
218. Martinez, A. C., Levie, J., Kelley, D. J., Saemundssonm, R. J., & Schott, T. (2010). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) special report: A global perspective on entrepreneurship education and training. London, UK: The Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA). Minniti, M., & Nardone, C. (2007). Being in someone else’s shoes: Gender and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2), 223
238. Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129
144. Raposo, M. L. B., Ferreira, J. J. M., Do Paco, A. M. F., & Rodrigues, R. J. A. G. (2008). Propensity to firm creation: empirical research using structural equations. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 485
504.

Do Entrepreneurship Programs Influence Students’ Behavior?

87

Rasmussen, E. A., & Sorheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26, 185
194. Sanchez, J. C. (2011). The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 447
465. Scholtens, B. (1999). Analytical issues in external financing alternatives for SBEs. Small Business Economics, 12, 137
148. Shapero, A. (1982). Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vespers (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72
90). Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall. Sieger, P., Fueglistaller, U. & Zellweger, T. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions and activities of students across the world. International report of the GUESSS project 2011. St. Gallen: Swiss Research Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship at the University of St. Gallen (KMU-HSG). Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168
182. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 566
591. Thursby, M. C., Fuller, A. W., & Thursby, J. (2009). An integrated approach to educating professionals for careers in innovation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3), 389
405. Van Gelderen, M., Brand, M., Van Praag, M., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E., & Van Gils, A. (2008). Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of planned behavior. Career Development International, 13(6), 538
559. Vanevenhoven, J. (2013). Advances and challenges in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 466
470. Vanevenhoven, J., & Ligouri, E. (2013). The impact of entrepreneurship education: Introducing the entrepreneurship education project. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 315
328. Von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D., & Weber, R. (2010). The effects of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 76(1), 90
112. Wang, C. K., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Singapore. Technovation, 24, 163
172. Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Singh, A. A. (2007). Towards an “entrepreneurial university” model to support knowledge-based economic development: The case of the National University of Singapore. World Development, 35(6), 941
958. Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Singh, A. A. (2011). Towards a “global knowledge enterprise”: The entrepreneurial university model of the National University of Singapore. In P. K. Wong (Ed.), Academic entrepreneurship in Asia: The role and impact of universities in national innovation systems (pp. 165
198). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

THE INTERNAL PATHWAYS THAT CONDITION UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN LATIN AMERICA: AN INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH Maribel Guerrero, David Urbano and Eduardo Gajo´n ABSTRACT Within a knowledge-driven, entrepreneurial economy, an increase in a university’s importance is observed because of its significant affect on the economy. Thus, entrepreneurship is a phenomenon that could be observed among all university levels: management, academicians, researchers, and undergraduate and postgraduate students. Entrepreneurial universities could produce several externalities in terms of demography, economy, infrastructure, culture, mobility, education, and societal challenges that will later be reflected in productivity, competitive advantages, and regional capacities, networks, identity, and innovation. In this context, entrepreneurial universities have or are positioned to develop innovative

Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, Volume 24, 89
118 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1048-4736/doi:10.1108/S1048-473620140000024004

89

90

MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

pathways to reinforce entrepreneurship in their communities. This chapter explores how entrepreneurial university pathways (education and training) have had an impact on students’ start-up intentions and actions. Adopting the institutional economics approach, this research proposes a conceptual model, tested with a sample of 1,759 university students enrolled in three entrepreneurial universities (ITESM, Mexico; UNICAMP, Brazil; and UPC, Chile) in Latin America. Our findings confirm the relevant effect of entrepreneurial university pathways on start-up creation. Not only do the results provide important contributions to the literature, they also provide insights for policy-makers to design policies that further benefit society and educational organizations. Keywords: Entrepreneurial university; entrepreneurship education; start-up intentions; institutional economics; Latin America JEL classifications: L26; I23; A23

INTRODUCTION Throughout economic history, institutions have established societal rules that shape human interaction (North, 1990). Using previous entrepreneurship studies as reference, Audretsch and Thurik (2004) identified two economic models as the political, social, and economic responses to an economy dictated by particular forces: the managed economy and the entrepreneurial economy. In the managed economy, the force is large-scale production, reflecting the predominant production factors of capital and unskilled labor as the sources of competitive advantage. In the entrepreneurial economy, the dominant production factor is knowledge capital as the source of competitive advantage, which is complemented by entrepreneurship capital, representing the capacity to engage in and generate entrepreneurial activity. In each economic model, institutions are created and modified to facilitate the activity that serves as the driving force underlying economic growth and prosperity. Following this point of view, within an entrepreneurial economy, an increase in a university’s importance is observed due to its significant affect on the economy (Audretsch, 2013). Adopting an institutional perspective, some entrepreneurial university pathways play an important role, such as the university’s policies/support measures, entrepreneurial educational programs, and culture, which is reflected in the community members’ favorable attitude toward entrepreneurship and the existence and subsequent diffusion of university entrepreneurs demonstrating that

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship

91

entrepreneurial success is more than a theory (Guerrero & Urbano, 2012). Prior studies have shown the positive effect of entrepreneurship education programs on the behavior and the self-efficacy needed by students to become entrepreneurs (Degroof & Roberts, 2004). We believe that the effect of university pathways on students’ start-up intentions and actions could be identified via these motivational factors (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006). Based on these arguments, this research aims to contribute to a better understanding of the internal pathways that condition the entrepreneurial activity within three Latin American entrepreneurial universities. More concretely, we explore the university’s role on the creation of students’ start-up intentions and actions. Adopting an institutional perspective, complemented by the planned behavior theory, this chapter proposes a conceptual model showing the effect of university pathways on start-up intentions and actions mediated by motivational factors. This model was tested with a sample of 1,759 university students from three Latin American entrepreneurial universities (Tecnolo´gico de Monterrey, Mexico; Universidad de Campinas, Brazil; and Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica, Chile), selected according to the theoretical criterions used in prior studies (Audretsch & Lehmann, 2005; Clark, 1998; Di Gregorio & Shane, 2003; Guerrero & Urbano, 2012; O’Shea, Allen, Chevalier, & Roche, 2005; Rothaermel, Agung, & Jiang, 2007; Shane, 2004; Wright, Clarysse, Mustar, & Lockett, 2007). Our findings confirm the relevant effect of entrepreneurial university pathways on start-up creation. This chapter is organized as follows: In section 2, we explain the internal pathways that condition university entrepreneurship. In section 3, we describe the affect of entrepreneurial university pathways on the creation of students’ start-ups, in particular, the theoretical framework and hypothesis are proposed. Following these sections, we explain the methodological design to empirically test our model. The theoretical model is subsequently tested using structural equation modeling (SEM), and the main findings are discussed. The paper ends with the conclusions of the study.

THE INTERNAL PATHWAYS THAT CONDITION UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP: AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE The institutional economics approach has been used to analyze the influence of environmental factors on entrepreneurship (Thornton, RibeiroSoriano, & Urbano, 2011). In particular, the institutional approach has

92

MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

analyzed the changes in tertiary educational systems (Hanson, 2001; Witte, 2004), the impact on regional innovation systems (Cumbers, Leibovitz, & MacKinnon, 2007; Doloreux, Dionne, & Lapointe, 2007), and in the analysis of determinants of and impacts on entrepreneurial universities (Guerrero & Urbano, 2012; Guerrero, Urbano, Cunnigham, & Organ, 2012; Urbano & Guerrero, 2013). North (1990) proposed a wide concept of “institutions that are the rules of the game in a society, or more formally, institutions are the constraints that shape human interaction” (p. 3). Therefore, institutions include any form of constraint that human beings devise to shape human interactions. Institutions can be either formal
including political rules, economic rules, and contracts
or informal
including codes of conduct, attitudes, values, norms of behavior, and the conventions or the culture of a determined society. North (2005) also attempted to explain how institutions and institutional context affect economic and social development. Adopting these ideas, the institutional economics approach provides a better understanding about the environmental factors (formal and informal) that contribute to an entrepreneurial university’s outcomes. In this respect, the identification and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities within universities requires a supportive climate to promote the drive for innovation and entrepreneurship among all members (Mitchell et al., 2007; Mueller, 2007). However, universities are large organizations and by nature tend not to be the most entrepreneurial organizations (Kirby, 2006). Nevertheless, the incorporation of an entrepreneurial orientation into a university’s missions could change this situation. An entrepreneurial university is characterized by organizational adaptation to environmental changes (Clark, 1998), managerial and governance distinctiveness (Subotzky, 1999), new activities oriented to the development of entrepreneurial culture at all levels (Kirby, 2002), a contribution to economic development with the creation of new ventures (Chrisman, Hynes, & Fraser, 1995), and the commercialization of research (Jacob, Lundqvist, & Hellsmark, 2003). Applying these parameters, an entrepreneurial university has the ability to innovate, recognize, and create opportunities; work in teams; take risks; and respond to challenges (Guerrero & Urbano, 2012). Moreover, it can devise a substantial shift in organizational character to take on a more promising posture for the future (Clark, 1998). In the entrepreneurial society characterized in the twenty-first century, the university’s role is considerably broader than simply facilitating technology transfer (Audretsch, 2013). More concretely, an entrepreneurial university is required to fulfill three missions simultaneously, which otherwise might be

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship

93

at odds with one another: teaching, research, and entrepreneurship. To do so, an entrepreneurial university needs to become an entrepreneurial organization, its members need to become entrepreneurs, and its interactions with the environment need to follow an entrepreneurial pattern (Urbano & Guerrero, 2013). According to previous investigations, the key environmental factors of entrepreneurial universities include: (i) a flexible organizational and governance structure with innovative forms to help reduce the levels of bureaucracy and to support a fluid language with other agents in the region’s entrepreneurial ecosystem to allow for the interaction and the definition of policies and practices to achieve their missions (O’Shea, Allen, Morse, O’Gorman, & Roche, 2007); (ii) measures integrated by different instruments and mechanisms developed by universities to support internal and external new firm creation as centers of small-university businesses, research facilities, research groups or quasi firms, liaison offices, technology transfer offices, and incubators (Grandi & Grimaldi, 2005; Link & Scott, 2005); (iii) adequate educational programs, for both students and academics, that provide a wide variety of situations, aims, and methods oriented toward improving students’ skills, attributes, and behaviors to develop both creative and critical thinking (Kirby, 2004); (iv) community members’ favorable attitudes toward entrepreneurship to facilitate the development of potential entrepreneurs among all university levels (Lin˜a´n, Urbano, & Guerrero, 2011; Louis, Blumenthal, Gluck, & Stoto, 1989); (v) the existence and the diffusion of successful entrepreneurs, who will become new role models to their peers, demonstrating that entrepreneurial success is more than a theory (Venkataraman, 2004) and influencing entrepreneurial intentions (Lin˜a´n et al., 2011); and (vi) adequate rewards systems that represent strategic actions intended to promote an enterprise that is both monetary (bonuses, use of corporate resources, profit-sharing, etc.) and non-monetary (promotion and recognition systems) (Wright et al., 2007).

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL UNIVERSITY PATHWAYS ON THE CREATION OF STUDENTS’ START-UPS An entrepreneurial university generates several outcomes from teaching, research, and entrepreneurial activities. Undoubtedly, these outcomes could be transformed later into determinants of economic development based on

94

MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

the endogenous growth theory (Audretsch & Keilbach, 2007, 2009; Coleman, 1988; Lucas, 1988; Romer, 1986; Solow, 1956) and could produce positive effects on the economy and society of a specific region. However, with the expansion of universities’ missions, measuring the universities’ outcomes has become more complex. For instance, teaching activities have been a university’s universal function (Kirby, Guerrero, & Urbano, 2011). Universities educate and train students, who become jobseekers or job creators after graduation (Schulte, 2004). Hence, entrepreneurial universities could have an impact on economic notions about human capital considered a factor of production by Lucas (1988), who refers to the stock of competencies, knowledge, abilities, and skills gained through education and training (Becker, 1964). Moreover, teaching activities are associated with the outcomes of entrepreneurial activities via the creation of start-ups by students. Following this perspective, an entrepreneurial university is an organization that actively seeks to create an organizational culture that adopts an entrepreneurial attitude toward its future development (Clark, 1998). For this reason, within entrepreneurial universities, there is a strong trend toward policies and mechanisms to enhance the generation, valuation, and exploitation of entrepreneurial ideas (Guerrero & Urbano, 2012). For university students, successful examples of entrepreneurial university pathways include entrepreneurship educational programs, which provide a wide variety of real situations, methods/strategies, and knowledge/skills/ abilities (Kirby, 2004) and reinforce attributes/behaviors to develop creative/critical thinking and make individual career choices (Lee & Wong, 2004; Louis et al., 1989). A few studies have shown via control variables the positive effect of entrepreneurship education programs on the attitudes toward the behavior (the desire or attractiveness of the proposed behavior or the degree to which the individual holds a positive or negative personal valuation about being an entrepreneur) and the self-efficacy (the feasibility or the perceived ease/difficulty or individual’s own capacity to carry out a specific behavior) needed by students to become entrepreneurs (Ajzen, 2002; Autio, Keeley, Klofsten, Parker, & Hay, 2001; Degroof & Roberts, 2004; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Meyer, 2003). Adopting the planned behavior theory, start-up intentions must trigger an individual’s behavior to take action, which gives rise to venture creation because intentions without actions will not generate new enterprises or economic value (Bird & Schjoedt, 2009). Therefore, the influence of these university pathways on start-up intentions could be identified via motivational factors (attitudes toward behavior and self-efficacy), in particular in knowledge contexts (entrepreneurial universities), where students have the ability to

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship

95

innovate, recognize, and create opportunities; work in teams; take risks; and respond to challenges (Kirby, 2006). As a consequence, Hypothesis 1: Internal entrepreneurial university pathways have a positive effect on students’ start-up intentions (mediated by motivational factors). According to the entrepreneurial action perspective, entrepreneurship is fundamentally an individual phenomenon to pursue and exploit opportunities. Entrepreneurs bear the responsibility for making judgmental decisions that affect the localization, moment, form, and use of goods or scarce resources to launch a new business (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). The entrepreneurial process involves both the opportunity of perception and the subsequent action to create a firm (Renko, Shrader, & Simon, 2012). On the one hand, the perception, identification, and assessment of entrepreneurial opportunities represent the chance for an individual to offer some new value to society, often by introducing innovative and novel products or services (Lee & Venkataraman, 2006). On the other hand, entrepreneurial actions refer to the behavior in response to a judgmental decision by creating a new firm, always with the possibility for economic gain or financial loss (Hastie, 2001). In this respect, McMullen and Shepherd (2006) argue that entrepreneurial action demands feasibility (what can be achieved in the way that is envisioned) and desirability (whether its attainment will fulfill the motive for which it is being sought). Therefore, entrepreneurial action depends, to a large extent, on how individuals combine: (a) their motivations, which vary in how they perceive the risk of expending resources before knowing the distribution of outcomes (Arenius & Minnitti, 2005; Shane, Locke, & Collins, 2003) and (b) their human capital (i.e., individual education, experiences, and skills), which constitutes a firm-unique, intangible asset (Davidsson & Honig, 2003), and how their access to other resources may prompt (or hamper) the decision to start a new venture (Chang, Hughes, & Hotho, 2011). Therefore, the students’ career choice to become entrepreneurs will be influenced by the university pathways via the direct effect observed on the students’ motivational factors and the indirect effect produced on start-up intentions. As a result, Hypothesis 2: Internal entrepreneurial university pathways have a positive effect on students’ start-up actions (by the effect produced on start-up intentions via motivational factors). To summarize, Fig. 1 shows the proposed model used to explore how entrepreneurial university pathways affect students’ start-up intentions and their start-up career choice.

96

MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

Entrepreneurial University Pathways Transfer • Perception about entrepreneurship education programs and training

Motivational Factors Transfer • Attitude toward behaviors • Entrepreneurial selfefficacy

Entrepreneurial Actions

Entrepreneurial Intentions Transfer

H1

• Start-up intentions

H2

• Career choice after graduation: Start-up creation

Social Environment Transfer Main focus in this research • Subjective norms

Fig. 1.

Proposed Model. Source: Based on Ajzen (1991), McMullen and Shepherd (2006), and Guerrero and Urbano (2012).

METHODOLOGY Data This exploratory research uses the 2011 GUESSS1 project database, which allows us to recognize three entrepreneurial universities in three Latin American countries (Mexico, Brazil, and Chile), with a representative sample of students interviewed according to their average annual student population (1,759 observations): in particular, 531 from the Tecnolo´gico de Monterrey (ITESM, Mexico), 758 from the Universidad de Campinas (UNICAMP, Brazil), and 470 from the Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica (UPC, Chile). These universities were selected following the criteria used to identify entrepreneurial universities (Audretsch & Lehmann, 2005; Clark, 1998; Di Gregorio & Shane, 2003; Guerrero & Urbano, 2012; O’Shea et al., 2005, 2007; Rothaermel et al., 2007; Shane, 2004; Wright et al., 2007): (i) promoting an entrepreneurial culture by strategic actions that allow for

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship

97

adaptation to environmental changes; (ii) making self-instituting efforts to change its general character by developing entrepreneurial initiatives; and (iii) being located in regions characterized by higher levels of entrepreneurship measured by the number of new enterprises. Also, these universities are listed in the top 10 of universities in Latin American Rankings.2 Complementary, we collected qualitative information at the university level using secondary data sources such as university websites, official documents, and other public and official databases.

Variables The variables were integrated by the five major measures from Fig. 1: (i) motivational factors toward entrepreneurship (i.e., attitudes toward behaviors, entrepreneurial self-efficacy) (Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998; Lin˜a´n & Chen, 2009); (ii) the subjective norms as the influence of society via reference people (Lin˜a´n & Chen, 2009); (iii) the students’ perception about entrepreneurial university pathways (education and training) as a proxy of the university influence on start-up intentions/actions (Souitaris, Zerbinati, & Al-Laham, 2007); (iv) start-up intentions,3 such as a proxy of the entrepreneurial activity that evidenced the initial intention to create a start-up during their studies (Allen & Meyer, 1990); and (v) start-up actions,4 such as a proxy of the students’ career choice of becoming entrepreneurs five years after graduation (Allen & Meyer, 1990). As a control variable, we included the years that each student has been involved at the university. Table 1 shows the description of each variable that integrates our proposed model. We corroborate the validity and correlations among the constructs. Table 1 also reports the means, standard deviations, and measures to corroborate the reliability of each construct (Fox, 1980; Shook, Ketchen, Hult, & Kacmar, 2004; Sobel, 1982). In particular, the study adopted three measures: (i) the confirmatory factor analysis, which helps ensure the measurement properties of the constructs and the test-reported values of 0.70 or higher;5 (ii) the cronbach’s alpha (α), used to calculate a measure of internal reliability based on the average covariance among items in a scale and the test-reported values of 0.70 or higher;6 and (iii) the item to total correlations, a test to check whether any item in the set of tests is inconsistent with the averaged behavior of the others, and thus can be discarded, and the test-reported values of 0.50 or higher.7

Motivational factors ATT01. Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than disadvantages to me ATT02. A career as entrepreneur is attractive for me ATT03. If I had the opportunity and resources, I would become an entrepreneur ATT04. Being an entrepreneur would entail great satisfactions for me SE01. Establish and achieve goals and objectives SE02. Generate new ideas SE03. Develop new products and services SE04. Performing financial analysis SE05. Reduce risk and uncertainty SE07. Make decisions under uncertainty and risk SE08. Manage time by setting goals SE09. Take responsibility for ideas and decisions SE10. Start my own firm SE11. Lead my own firm to success

Entrepreneurial selfefficacy (Chen et al., 1998)

Description

1.372 1.596 1.754 1.575 1.562 1.438 1.386 1.845 1.860

5.700 6.020 5.100 5.340

1.583

5.760

5.690 5.160 5.000 5.260 5.340

1.604

5.790

1.205

1.602

5.470

6.060

1.575

Standard Deviation

5.530

Mean

Reliability and Convergent Analysis.

Attitudes toward behavior (Lin˜a´n & Chen, 2009)

Factor/Variable

Table 1.

KMO 0.910 χ2 12557.82 Significance 0.000

KMO 0.830 χ2 5040.59 Significance 0.000

Factorial Analysis

0.922

0.907

Cronbach’s α

0.761 0.752

0.731 0.703

0.766 0.781 0.761 0.808 0.878

0.724

0.922

0.881

0.920

0.815

Item to total correlation

Internal Reliability Analysis

98 MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

Subjective norms (Lin˜a´n & Chen, 2009)

Entrepreneurial university environment (Souitaris et al., 2007)

Social environment

Perception of entrepreneurial university pathways (education & training) EUE01. The university environment increased the students’ attitudes, values, and motivations EUE02. The university environment increased the students’ entrepreneurial actions EUE03. The university environment enhanced the students’ managerial skills EUE04. The university environment enhanced the students’ ability to develop networks EUE05. The university environment enhanced the students’ ability to identify opportunities EUE06. In the university environment the students found many entrepreneurialmindset classmates EUE07. The university environment provided a favorable climate for becoming an entrepreneur EUE078. The university environment imparted classes and training in entrepreneurship

SN01. Care about the opinion of parents/ family SN02. Care about the opinion of friends SN03. Care about the opinion of important people 1.832

1.897

1.877 1.836

1.893

2.006

1.940

2.068

4.520

4.360 4.420

4.630

4.370

4.580

4.220

1.301 1.130

6.050 6.260

4.720

1.244

6.240

KMO 0.933 χ2 12044.59 Significance 0.000

KMO 0.747 χ2 3263.96 Significance 0.000

0.942

0.899

0.907

0.907

0.847

0.902

0.777

0.935

0.920

0.915

0.911 0.918

0.906

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship 99

100

MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

Statistical Analysis We adopted SEM to analyze the results at the university level. SEM pinpoints causal relationships among the variables that integrate the proposed model of antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurial universities. This statistical technique has been widely used in behavioral sciences during the last decade (Shook et al., 2004) because it allows the examination of a set of relationships between one or more independent or dependent variables, either continuous or discrete (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). In addition, SEM allows for an estimate of the total, direct, and indirect effects among the variables proposed in the model. Based on that, we developed two models to explore the role of entrepreneurial university pathways on students’ start-up via motivational factors (attitudes and self-efficacy): a construct (model 1) as well as individual analysis of each motivational factor (model 2). Unlike other models, the SEM does not allow for the inclusion of binary variables (the case of our control variables). Our solution is to create groups and test the model with all groups simultaneously. The sample was split into subsamples to perform the analysis by university.

EXPLORING THE INTERNAL PATHWAYS THAT CONDITION UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN LATIN AMERICA Describing the Latin American Entrepreneurial Universities’ Contexts Tecnolo´gico de Monterrey (ITESM, MEXICO)8 It is a multi-campus university (33) present in 28 different cities throughout Mexico, where regional differences (economical, social, political, and geographical) are very significant. It is a private education system; thus, it must achieve financial self-sufficiency and face the characteristically highly competitive environment of this sector in Mexico. It was founded in 1943 by a visionary group of local Monterrey businessmen, thus receiving an entrepreneurial orientation from its inception. In 2005, it redefined its mission and vision toward 2015, reflecting a clear entrepreneurial purpose. From 2005 to 2010, the Tecnolo´gico de Monterrey created a network integrating 25 business incubators, 14 business accelerators, and 9 technological parks, becoming a leading university in entrepreneurship. Recently, its entrepreneurship ecosystem was selected as one of the six leading

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship

101

university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems in the world (Fetters, Greene, Rice, & Butler, 2010) by entrepreneurship researchers from Babson College, which is recognized internationally for its entrepreneurial leadership. Nowadays, the Tecnolo´gico de Monterrey is one of the leading private universities in Latin America, with more than 90,000 students and 4,000 professors. The institution is accredited by the United State’s Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to offer undergraduate and graduate degrees. Tecnolo´gico de Monterrey’s more than 70 programs are also accredited by international and national accrediting organizations. In Mexico, the Tecnolo´gico de Monterrey’s leadership may be reflected by its alumni, who direct 18% of the country’s most important companies and govern 20% of Mexican states. Tecnolo´gico de Monterrey has a strong leadership in Latin America and is internationally recognized. Universidad de Campinas (UNICAMP, Brazil)9 It is a state university established in 1966 in the city of Campinas, with the goal to become an academic center of excellence, producing world-class basic and applied research, providing high-standards undergraduate and graduate education, and serving as a catalyst for economic and social development. This university was designed to differentiate itself from other Brazilian universities
which were patterned after the French model
by emphasizing graduate studies and scientific research in the tradition of American schools such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After its creation, the university built a strong scientific base by attracting leading Brazilian scientists, many of whom were working abroad, and by concentrating massive government investments in state-of-the-art research laboratories. The university has developed an interdependent relationship with industry since its inception. Its emphasis in areas such as physics and electrical engineering has been paralleled by the development of a local telecommunications industry. Almost 20,000 students are enrolled in 125 different programs, 80 of which offer graduate degrees (including medicine, dentistry, several engineering specializations, basic natural and human sciences, applied sciences, education, and arts). Its admission process is one of the most competitive in Brazil, with nearly 52,000 candidates for 3,310 incoming students. In fact, the university boasts a higher number of top-rated graduate programs than the total of all schools in most Brazilian states (Dagnino & Velho, 1998). The university has 1,800 faculties, with a large research output
close to 10% of all indexed scientific papers in Brazil have a UNICAMP co-author. In addition, UNICAMP is the Brazilian organization with the largest technological output, with more than

102

MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

50 patents requested each year since 2002. The university budget for 2011 was close to US$1.6 million, with 80% originating from the state budget. Overall, UNICAMP is an internationally recognized center of academic excellence, with a very distinct profile among Brazilian higher education institutions as a leader in technology, health sciences, natural sciences, human sciences, and the arts. Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile (UPC, Chile)10 It is a private university founded in 1888 by Monsignor Mariano Casanova (Archbishop of Santiago) with the goal of creating an institution capable of blending academic excellence and training based on the Christian doctrine. The relationship between the university and the Vatican began when the university was founded (Pope Leo XIII). The official juridical separation of church and state nonetheless arrived with the Constitution of 1925, but so important was the contribution of the Catholic university to the education of the elite’s youth that two years later it was recognized by law as a “collaborator in the educational mission of the state” and given a monetary subsidy (Bernasconi, 2005). The university has always aimed to achieve a solid education, founded in the sciences, arts, humanities, and Catholic morals. Thus, the university aims for its students to be not only technically and scientifically prepared, but also to be open to different human realities and to the social and personal responsibilities involved in the complete development of a society. Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile comprises 18 faculties that encompass a range of areas of study distributed across four campuses in Santiago and one in Villarrica in the south of Chile. Together, they offer applicants a wide array of undergraduate, graduate, certificate, and continuing education programs each year. In addition, to respond to complex problems that may arise across disciplines, UPC has created several research centers and programs. The combination of high academic standards, tough evaluation policies, research orientation, and significant incentives for good performance has brought about the emergence of academic entrepreneurs on campus (Bernasconi, 2005). Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile has created a prestigious and nationally pertinent tradition that can be seen in its graduates, who have been educated to guide and provide a unique shape to the country. Table 2 summarizes the descriptive analysis by university and by the main variables that define the profile of students interviewed in this sample. Interestingly, at the university level, these universities have a full comprehensive focus (cover all knowledge areas) and have similar size. By age, the UPC (private/catholic) is older than ITESM (private) and UNICAMP

Subsample Gender (% male) Age (years) Years involved in the university (years) Parents (% selfemployed) Start-up actions (index) Start-up intentions (categorical) Academic field

Students’ profile in the sample (averages)

758 students 68.0 25.02 years 2.66 years 0.79 5.12 Repeatedly & relatively concrete 20.7% Management 41.8% Engineering 0.3% Economics 1.1% Medicine 36.1% Others

1.23 9.90 Made an explicit decision to found a company 33.0% Management 20.0% Engineering 7.5% Economics 3.4% Medicine 36.1% Others

≥12,000 students Very high intensity Full comprehensive (all knowledge areas)

≥12,000 students Moderate intensity Full comprehensive (all knowledge areas) 531 students 44.0 23.63 years 3.45 years

Brazil Public 45 years 3rd

UNICAMP

Mexico Private 68 years 7th

ITESM

Universities

Descriptive Analysis, 2011.

Source: QS Rankings (2011), university websites, GUESSS database.

Country Profile Age Latin American Rankings (QS 2011) Size (students 2011) Research Focus

Description

General

Type

Table 2.

5.05 Repeatedly & relatively concrete 10.6% Management 33.4% Engineering 11.3% Economics 15.3% Medicine 29.4% Others

0.66

470 students 56.0 21.00 years 2.20 years

≥12,000 students High intensity Full comprehensive (all knowledge areas)

Chile Private/Catholic 123 years 2nd

UPC

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship 103

104

MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

(public). At the student level, on average the student interviewed from ITESM is a female (56%), 23.63 years old, enrolled, particularly, in management (33%) and engineering (20%) studies, and 1.23% of the students have entrepreneur parents. In contrast, from UNICAMP and UPC, the majority of interviewed students are male and less than 1% mentioned that their parents are entrepreneurs.

The Role of Latin American Entrepreneurial University Pathways on Students’ Start-up We estimated the theoretical model, employing the maximum-likelihood estimator. In particular, the quality of the measurement model presents adequate parameters [x2 normalized 4.40; CFI 0.945; GFI 0.909; and RMSEA 0.029].11 Fig. 2 summarizes the non-standardized estimates and parameters for the coefficients of the main variables of our proposed model (for further details, see Annexes 1 and 2). The sample was also controlled by the length of the students’ involvement in the university. Interestingly, the coefficient of this variable is significant only in the entire sample (0.170 at p < 0.001) and in the Mexican university (0.168 at p < 0.010). In general, the results showed that internal entrepreneurial university pathways have a positive and significant effect on motivational factors but lower than 1 (Global: 0.195 at p < 0.001; ITESM: 0.237 at p < 0.001; UNICAMP: 0.155

g0

Direct effects: University on Motivations

Direct effect: Motivational on Intentions

Direct effect: Intentions on Actions

Global ITESM UNICAMP UPC

Global ITESM UNICAMP UPC

Global ITESM UNICAMP UPC

1

University Pathways

= = = =

0.195 (0.016)*** 0.237 (0.031)*** 0.155 (0.025)*** 0.177 (0.031)*** f0

= = = =

0.919 (0.065)*** 1.051 (0.123)*** 0.822 (0.109)*** 0.685 (0.097)***

= = = =

2.816 (0.094)*** 2.274 (0.196)*** 2.851 (0.140)*** 2.314 (0.172)***

1

Motivational Factors

Indirect effect: University on Intentions Global ITESM UNICAMP UPC

Start-up Actions

Start-up Intentions

= = = =

0.179 (0.018)** 0.437 (0.043)** 0.127 (0.026)** 0.121 (0.025)**

1

1

d0

e0

Indirect effect: University on Actions Global ITESM UNICAMP UPC

= = = =

0.504 (0.056)** 0.994 (0.126)** 0.363 (0.080)** 0.402 (0.087)**

Fig. 2. Direct and Indirect Effect of Entrepreneurial University Pathways. Notes: [x2 normalized 3.75; CFI 0.950; GFI 0.912; and RMSEA 0.028]. Level of statistical significance: ***p ≤ 0.001, **p ≤ 0.01, *p ≤ 0.05, †p ≤ 0.10. Source: Authors.

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship

105

at p < 0.001; UPC: 0.177 at p < 0.001). Moreover, the indirect effect of entrepreneurial university pathways on students’ start-up intentions
mediated by motivational factors
is 0.179 at p < 0.001 in the entire sample. By university, the indirect effect observed is higher in the Mexican university (0.437 at p < 0.001) than in the Brazilian university (0.127 at p < 0.001) and Chilean university (0.121 at p < 0.001). Therefore, the mediating effect12 of motivational factors is proximally 16% in the entire sample, 34% in the ITESM, 13% in the UNICAMP, and 15% in the UPC (see Annex 3). In other words, the evidence confirms the relevant role of the perception of entrepreneurial education and training provided by the university on the students’ start-up intentions via motivational factors (reinforcing the attitudes toward entrepreneurship and individual selfefficacy). It is interesting to mention that by university the higher effects are observed in the ITESM, evidencing the positive results behind all the innovative university pathways implemented in this university as well as influenced by the student’s profile because a percentage of its students are part of entrepreneurial families. But there are other university factors that also need to be taking into account in future research, such as the relevance of traditions, organizational culture, and other support measures like incubators/technology transfer centers (Bernasconi, 2005; Guerrero & Urbano, 2012). As a consequence, these results support our hypothesis 1, which states that internal entrepreneurial university pathways have a positive effect on students’ start-up intentions (mediated by motivational factors). Fig. 2 also shows the positive effect of motivational factors on start-up intentions (Global: 0.919 at p < 0.001; ITESM: 1.051 at p < 0.001; UNICAMP: 0.822 at p < 0.001; UPC: 0.685 at p < 0.001). Indirectly, the motivational factors produced a mediated effect on entrepreneurial action in all universities. In other words, more than 45% of the relation between start-up intentions and start-actions is attributed to motivational factors. Based on that, it was possible to estimate the simultaneous indirect effect of entrepreneurial university pathways on start-up actions. We observed a strong indirect effect (Global: 0.504 at p < 0.001; ITESM: 0.994 at p < 0.001; UNICAMP: 0.363 at p < 0.001; UPC: 0.402 at p < 0.001). In these cases, the mediating effect represents proximally 15% in the entire sample, 35% in the ITESM, 11% in the UNICAMP, and 15% in the UPC (see Annex 3). Interestingly, with exception of ITESM, where the effects are almost the same, the indirect effect of university pathways on start-up is lower than the effect of subjective norms on start-up actions. This means that the students are more influenced by the society or reference people than the actions promoted by their universities. Therefore, these results

106

MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

support our hypothesis 2, which states that internal entrepreneurial university pathways have a positive effect on students’ start-up actions (by the indirect impact observed on start-up intentions).

CONCLUSIONS Entrepreneurship is a phenomenon observed among all university levels: management, academicians, researchers, and undergraduate and postgraduate students. According to Audretsch and Keilbach (2007), entrepreneurship is another element in the production function because entrepreneurship contributes to output and growth by serving as a conduit for knowledge spillovers, increasing competition, and injecting diversity. Thus, an entrepreneurial university could attract or generate new enterprises that promote competition and diversity (Clarysse, Wright, Lockett, Van de Velde, & Vohora, 2005; Shane, 2004; Vohora, Wright, & Lockett, 2004; Wright et al., 2007). These effects could then produce several externalities in terms of demography, economy, infrastructure, culture, mobility, education, and societal challenges that will later be reflected in productivity, competitive advantages, and regional capacities, networks, identity, and innovation (Powers & McDougall, 2005). For all these reasons, universities develop innovative pathways to reinforce entrepreneurship in their university community. This chapter explores the role of entrepreneurial university pathways (education and training) on students’ start-up intentions and actions. Adopting the institutional economics approach, this research proposed a conceptual model that was tested with a sample integrated with students enrolled in three entrepreneurial universities (ITESM, UNICAMP, and UPC) in Latin America. The results confirm the relevant effect of entrepreneurial university pathways on start-up creation. The main limitations of this study include that it is a cross-sectional study. The database only covers the effect during one year. However, as there are still too few universities in Latin America with entrepreneurial activity and no other database exists in this field, the GUESSS database currently represents an interesting opportunity to conduct an empirical, quantitative study on this subject. Several future research opportunities can be identified. A first option may be the conducting of a deeper, qualitative study on these three Latin American universities (ITESM, UNICAMP, and UPC). A second possibility, in addition to analyzing the impact of internal factors on the amount of new ventures created, may be to address

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship

107

questions regarding the effect of specific configurations of resources and capabilities on better, more successful new ventures. Other natural extensions could be the economic and social impact of these universities in the region where they are located. In general, the empirical evidence clearly shows the positive impact of entrepreneurial university pathways on the number of new ventures created. These findings could also contribute to the design of policies needed to develop entrepreneurial universities in Latin America.

NOTES 1. GUESSS is an international research project using a geographical and temporal comparison to investigate the entrepreneurial intention and activity of students. The founding process and the reference frameworks for both the universities and individuals form the center of the observation. For further information, see http://www.guesssurvey.org/ 2. For further details: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/latinamerican-university-rankings/2012 3. It was measured with categorical variables: (1) never; (2) repeatedly & relatively concrete; (3) I have made an explicit decision to found a company; (4) I have already started with the realization; (5) I am already self-employed in my own founded firm; (6) I have already founded more than one company, and am active in at least one of them. These types of variable are also used in structural equation model (Skrondal & Rabe-Hesketh, 2005). 4. It was a variable estimated based on the start-up intentions and selected questions regarding the development of founding steps after graduation by the students. 5. Kaiser
Meyer
Olkin measures the sampling adequacy that indicates the proportion of variance in the variables that might be caused by underlying factors. High values (close to 1.0) generally indicate that a factor analysis may be useful. If the value is less than 0.50, the results of the factor analysis probably will not be very useful (Greene, 2003). 6. This measure assumes that items on a scale are positively correlated with each other because all are tapping into the same construct. Therefore, a high alpha (0.70 and higher) represents that all scale items are measuring the same construct (Greene, 2003). 7. A good measure is more than 0.50 and close to 1 (Greene, 2003). 8. For further information: http://www.itesm.mx 9. For further information: http://www.unicamp.br 10. For further information: http://www.uc.cl 11. Shook et al. (2004) argue that a good fit is showed when: the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is close or less than 0.05; the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Goodness of fit index (GFI) are at least 0.80 or higher; and the x2 normalized is low as 2 indicates a reasonable fit.

108

MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

12. A related measure of mediation is the proportion of the effect that is mediated, or the indirect effect divided by the total effect (ab/c) (Sobel, 1982).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments. Maribel Guerrero recognizes the support of Mexico’s National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT). David Urbano acknowledges financial support from Projects ECO2010-16760 (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation) and 2005SGR00858 (Catalan Government Department for Universities, Research and Information Society).

REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179
211. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665
683. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1
18. Arenius, P., & Minnitti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 732
755. Audretsch, D. (2013). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer. Available at http://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s10961-012-9288-1. Accessed on 9 January 2013. doi:10.1007/s10961-0129288-1 Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M. (2009). Resolving the knowledge paradox: Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy, 37(10), 1697
1705. Audretsch, D., & Lehmann, E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, i, 1191
1202. Audretsch, D., & Thurik, R. (2004). A model of the entrepreneurial economy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 143
166. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242
1254. Autio, E., Keeley, R. H., Klofsten, M. G., Parker, G. C., & Hay, M. (2001). Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2(2), 145
160. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bernasconi, A. (2005). University entrepreneurship in a developing country: The case of the P. Universidad Catolica de Chile, 1985
2000. Higher Education, 50(2), 247
274.

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship

109

Bird, B., & Schjoedt, L. (2009). Entrepreneurial behavior: Its nature, scope, recent research, and agenda for future research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(5), 327
358. Chang, Y. Y., Hughes, M., & Hotho, S. (2011). Internal and external antecedents of SMEs’ innovation ambidexterity outcomes. Management Decision, 49(10), 1658
1676. Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295
316. Chrisman, J., Hynes, T., & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 267
281. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Oxford: Pergamon. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 183
216. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95
120. Cumbers, A., Leibovitz, J., & MacKinnon, D. (2007). Institutional features, path dependencies and regional industrial change: Comparing mature and embryonic clusters in an old industrial region. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 7, 424
444. Dagnino, R., & Velho, L. (1998). University
industry
government relations on the periphery: The University of Campinas, Brazil. Minerva, 36(3), 229
251. Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301
331. Degroof, J., & Roberts, E. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3
4), 1573
7047. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209
227. Doloreux, D., Dionne, S., & Lapointe, D. (2007). Institutional structure and modes of governance in non-metropolitan innovation systems. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 7, 405
423. Fetters, M. L., Greene, P. G., Rice, M. P., & Butler, J. S. (2010). The development of universitybased entrepreneurship ecosystems: global practices. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc. Fox, J. (1980). Effects analysis in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 9, 3
28. Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics’ organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 821
845. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43
74. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunnigham, J., & Organ, D. (2012). Entrepreneurial universities: A case study comparison in two European regions. Journal of Technology Transfer. Available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10961-012-9287-2. Accessed on 9 January 2013. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9287-2 Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional theory and educational change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 637
661. Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 653
683.

110

MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32(9), 1555
1569. Kirby, D. A. (2002). Entrepreneurship. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill. Kirby, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge? Education and Training, 46(8
9), 510
519. Kirby, D. A. (2006). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 599
603. Kirby, D. A., Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2011). Making universities more entrepreneurial: Development of a model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 28(3), 302
316. Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47
57. Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(3), 91
104. Lee, J. H., & Venkataraman, S. (2006). Aspirations, market offerings, and the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1), 107
123. Lee, S. H., & Wong, P. K. (2004). An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: A career anchor perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 7
28. Link, A., & Scott, J. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106
1112. Lin˜a´n, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(3), 593
617. Lin˜a´n, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(3
4), 187
215. Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviours among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 110
131. Lucas, R. Jr. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3
42. McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132
152. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneur or entrepreneurial academics? Research based ventures and public support mechanism. R & D Management, 33(2), 107
115. Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L. W., Bird, B., Gaglio, C. M., McMullen, J. S., & Morse, E. A. (2007). The central question in entrepreneurial cognition research 2007. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 1
27. Mueller, P. (2007). Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities: The impact of entrepreneurship on growth. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 355
362. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: University Press. North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship

111

O’Shea, R., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spin-off performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34, 994
1009. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience. R & D Management, 37(1), 1
16. Powers, J., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technological licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291
311. QS Rankings. (2011). Top universities in Latin American. Retrieved from: http://www.top universities.com/university-rankings/latin-american-university-rankings/2011 Renko, M., Shrader, R. C., & Simon, M. (2012). Perception of entrepreneurial opportunity: A general framework. Management Decision, 50(7), 1233
1251. Romer, P. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002
1037. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: Taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691
791. Schulte, P. (2004). The entrepreneurial university: A strategy for institutional development. Higher Education in Europe, 29(2), 187
191. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Shane, S., Locke, E., & Collins, C. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resources Management Review, 13, 257
279. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217
226. Shook, C., Ketchen, D., Hult, T., & Kacmar, M. (2004). An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 397
404. Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2005). Structural equation modeling: Categorical variables. Entry for the Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sobel, M. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290
312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Solow, R. (1956). A contribution to the economic growth theory. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65
94. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 566
591. Subotzky, G. (1999). Alternatives to the entrepreneurial university: New modes of knowledge production in community service programs. Higher Education, 38(4), 401
440. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Thornton, P., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Urbano, D. (2011). Socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial activity: An overview. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 105
118. Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial universities: Socio-economic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a European region. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 40
55.

112

MARIBEL GUERRERO ET AL.

Venkataraman, S. (2004). Regional transformation through technological entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 153
167. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147
174. Witte, J. (2004). The introduction of two-tiered study structures in the context of the Bologna process: A theoretical framework for an international comparative study of change in higher education systems. Higher Education Policy, 17, 405
425. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

113

The Internal Pathways that Condition University Entrepreneurship

ANNEX 1: REGRESSION WEIGHTS (ALL UNIVERSITIES
MODEL 1) b0 1 Self-efficacy g0

Attitudes

f0

1

University Pathways Global ITESM UNICAMP UPC

Motivational Factors = = = =

Global ITESM UNICAMP UPC

1 a0

1

0.195 (0.016)*** 0.237 (0.031)*** 0.155 (0.025)*** 0.177 (0.031)***

= = = =

2.816 (0.094)*** 2.274 (0.196)*** 2.851 (0.140)*** 2.314 (0.172)*** Start-up Intentions

Start-up Intentions Global ITESM UNICAMP UPC

= = = =

0.919 (0.065)*** 1.051 (0.123)*** 0.822 (0.109)*** 0.685 (0.097)***

1 d0

Social Norms c0

1

[x2 normalized 3.75; CFI 0.950; GFI 0.912; and RMSEA 0.028]

1 e0