WHAT DO WE KNOW AND WHAT OUGHT WE TO KNOW?

A Literature Review of Quasi Experimental Research on Entrepreneurship Education

Øivind Strand,

Department of International Marketing, Aalesund University College, Norway

ost@hials.no

Abstract

A literature review of the effects of entrepreneurship education has been performed. There are a large number of related research areas, and the author has chosen to look through the eyes of an entrepreneurship educator when deciding whether these areas should be included or excluded. This paper is mainly restricted to studies which use a control group, or a quasi-experimental approach. The main problem addressed is whether it is possible to measure the effect of entrepreneurship education on the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur. If so, can this effect be attributed to specific characteristics of the teaching methods or the education? A new large scale longitudinal study which has tried to measure the more direct macro-economic effect of participating in an entrepreneurship education programme has also been included.

Keywords: Entrepreneurship education, quasi experimental methods, entrepreneurial

intentions.

Biography:

Øivind Strand, Dr. Scient., is an Associate Professor in the BSc. in Innovation Management

and Entrepreneurship programme at the Department of International Marketing of Aalesund

University College in Norway. His teaching and research interests relate to innovation,

entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education. His papers have appeared in the following

journals: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, European Planning Studies, and

Safety Science Monitor.

1 Introduction

“We believe entrepreneurial skills, attitudes and behaviour can be learned, and that exposure

to entrepreneurship education throughout an individual’s lifelong learning path, starting from youth and continuing through adulthood into higher education - as well as reaching out to those economically or socially excluded... is imperative” (WEF, 2009, p.p. 7-8)

This quotation from an expert group in the World Economic Forum states their belief, but

what do we know? The purpose of this paper is to sum up some of the research literature

regarding the various effects of entrepreneurship education. There has been substantial

criticism of the methods used in research on entrepreneurship in general and in

entrepreneurship education in particular (Dainow, 1986; Gorman et al. 1997; Dickson et al.

2008; Thompson 2009). This is the background for mainly focusing on studies with strict

experimental control, in the form of quasi experimental setup (Cook and Campbell, 1979).

The outcome of entrepreneurship education is generally found on two time scales. On the

short timescale, studies have focused on measuring the change in entrepreneurial intentions

during or at the end of the education. This brings us to a major challenge, how shall

entrepreneurial intentions be measured? It was not until 2009 that a validated, reliable and

internationally applicable tool for measuring this concept was developed (Thompson 2009).

On the longer timescale the expected outcome is the creation of a new venture. The

outcome of entrepreneurship education on a macro scale has also been debated. The first

large scale study, to our knowledge, of the macro effects of entrepreneurship education is

also commented upon. The second question in the title of the paper, regarding what we

should have known, is raised from an entrepreneurship educator’s perspective. It aims to

shed light on our current knowledge of which teaching methods can be documented as

having the intended effects.

When first addressing this broad research area you enter a minefield of definitions, concepts,

methods and approaches (Bruyat and Julien, 2000; Mitchelmore and Rowley, 2008; Short et

al. 2009; Thompson 2009; Neck and Green, 2011). This study will mainly focus on four

streams of research relevant to the study of change of entrepreneurial intentions due to

participation in an entrepreneurship education: (1) Theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and

Ajzen, 1975). (2) Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991). (3) Social-cognitive theory

(Bandura, 1986; 1997). (4) Theory of the entrepreneurial event (Shapero and Sokol 1982;

Shapero 1984).

Entrepreneurship research in general can, despite the amount of research, still be

characterized as being in its pre-paradigmatic stage (Kuhn 1974). One of the latest streams

of research on entrepreneurship education, the effectuation theory, argues that

entrepreneurship is a method, not a subject. It is characterized by using, applying and acting,

rather than being a process that focuses on predicting, understanding and knowing (Neck

and Green, 2011; Sarasvathy, 2008).

Research on entrepreneurship education at university level is also part of the growing

literature on “the entrepreneurial university”, which focuses on the academic institutions’

more active role in society (Christensen and Evans, 2011; Gibb et al. 2009). The university-

industry-government relations have been theoretically elaborated by Etzkowize and

Leydesdorff (2000) and the use of their Triple-Helix theory has been used as a frame of

reference for entrepreneurship education (Hatlø et al. 2011).

The increased emphasis on entrepreneurship education from the EU, OECD, World

Economic Forum (WEF) and national governments is generally motivated by Schumpeterian

macro-economic arguments (Martinez et al. 2010). Entrepreneurship education can be

defined as:

“building of knowledge and skills either “about” or “for the purpose of” entrepreneurship generally, as a part of recognized educational programmes at primary, secondary or tertiary-level educational institutions” (Martinez et al. 2010 p. 8)

Many educational institutions have grasped this opportunity to set up entrepreneurship

education programmes of various length and quality. These programmes are mainly found

outside the major universities and mostly outside the business departments. It is the author’s

impression that many of the lecturers on these programmes, like the author, do not have a

research background in either entrepreneurship or business and administration. Meyer

(2011) even characterizes them with the term “economic wannabes”.

The increased focus on research on the actual outcome of entrepreneurship education

comes from a broad spectrum of stakeholders. National governments are interested in more

“evidenced based” strategies for entrepreneurship education. NGOs like Junior Achievement

Young Enterprise (JA-YE) are interested in the documented effect of their various

programmes. The entrepreneurship educator has a need for such education to have

academic legitimacy.

The theoretical framework for entrepreneurship is given in section 2. The literature review

and study methodology is found in section 3. The empirical findings are discussed in section

4 and a short conclusion is given in section 5.

2 Theoretical framework

Dainow concluded in a review of entrepreneurship education literature in 1986 (Dainow,

1986) that there was a need for more systematic research and more variation in methods in

order to bring the research field forward. Ten years later, Gorman et al. (1997) reviewed 63

papers written between 1985 and 1994, and he concluded that the research on

entrepreneurship education was still in its exploratory stage. (Dickson et al. 2008) Most

studies used cross section survey design and self reports with few experimental controls.

Dickson et al. (2008) examined the literature up to 2006 in order to find the status of

knowledge of the relationships between general education, entrepreneurship education and

a range of entrepreneurial activities. They identified two streams of research: one focused on

the founding of ventures as the outcome (6 articles) of entrepreneurship education; and the

other stream focused on various antecedents of selection into entrepreneurship (15 articles).

Within this field of research there are four main theoretical approaches. These are used

separately or in combination (McStay 2008, p. 30).

Shapero’s Entrepreneurial event theory (EET): This theory originates from Shapero and

Sokol (1982) and Shapero (1984). The main focus of this theory is that that critical life

changes (displacement) result in a change in the entrepreneurial intention and subsequent

behaviour. Displacement can occur in a positive form as pull factors (e.g. financial support,

favourable business partnership) as well as in negative form, with push factors (e.g. loss of

job, divorce, job dissatisfaction). The individual perception of the desirability and feasibility of

becoming an entrepreneur is the antecedent for the entrepreneurial event. The desirability is

considered to be formed through “intuitive thinking” as an emotive response (Bird 1988;

McStay 2008, p- 33), whereas feasibility is considered as a more rational process. McMullen

and Sheperd (2006) state that perceived feasibility is a function of entrepreneurial

knowledge. Fitzsimmons and Douglas (2010) have found a negative interaction between the

perceptions of desirability and feasibility for entrepreneurial intentions. They use an EET

approach and data from 414 MBA students in China, Australia, India and Thailand. McStay

(2008) uses entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a proxy for perceived feasibility.

The theory of reasoned action (TRA) originates from Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). The

theory states that human behaviour is a result of the intention to do something. The intention

in turn is dependent on two factors: attitude towards the behaviour (do I want to do it?); and

Subjective Norm (do other people want me to do it?). This theory has been further developed

by Ajzen (1991) into a theory of planned behaviour.

The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) which, compared to TRA includes a third factor:

perceived behavioural control (do I perceive that I am able to do it and do I have the

resources to do it?). The first two factors are believed to be motivational factors that influence

behaviour (McStay 2008). The attitude in TPB is similar to the perceived desirability in EET

(ibid). Perceived behavioural control has been referred to as feasibility (Kruger and Carlsrud,

1993; Peterman and Kennedy 2003). The competing models of entrepreneurship, TPB and

EET have been tested by Kruger et al. (2000). They find support for both theories, but slightly

more for EET.

Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT): Bandura (1986) identified human behaviour as

an interaction of: personal factors; behavioural factors, and environmental factors. These

three factors are constantly influencing each other. Bandura noted that self-referent thoughts

intervene between knowledge and behaviour and that individuals may convince themselves,

despite having the necessary knowledge that they lack the ability to perform a specific task

or behaviour. This cognitive mechanism is referred to as self-efficacy (Bandura 1997; McStay

2008). In the absence of self-efficacy, individuals make self-limiting decisions despite having

the necessary skills to pursue a path of action (Bandura 1986). The role of self-efficacy,

whether it is general or task specific, such as entrepreneurial self-efficacy, is a central theme

in pedagogy. Bandura (1986; 1997) describes four predictors of self-efficacy: actual

performance; vicarious experience; social encouragement, and overcoming anxiety for

performing tasks in a new environment (Zhao et al. 2005; Hatlø et al. 2011).

Quasi-experimental techniques: Cook and Campbell (1979) give a thorough description of

this technique in their reference book on the topic. The main steps in this method can be

summarized as follows: (1) A “treatment” group and a control group of equal characteristics

are selected. (2) At the beginning of the experiments, at time T1, both groups are measured

with the same survey instrument. (3) The “treatment” group is exposed to some kind of

treatment, in our case an entrepreneurship education programme, whereas as the control

group is not. (4) After the “treatment”, at T2, both groups are surveyed with the same

instrument in order to identify significant differences. The “treatment” group is generally not

randomly selected. In our setting this is usually students attending an entrepreneurship

programme. This may either be an elective course or a mandatory part of an education. The

difference between the groups can either be measured as individual changes or as changes

in the mean values of the population. The size of the groups will determine the confidence

level at which statistical conclusions can be drawn.

The intended contribution of this paper is threefold and relates to the status of empirically

documented knowledge on the following themes:

(1) Outcome of entrepreneurship education, in form of increased intention.

(2) Effects of various types of pedagogical approaches on entrepreneurship education.

(3) The macroeconomic effects of entrepreneurship education.

3 Methodology This review has a specific focus on empirical research linking entrepreneurial education to

measurable outcome. The author has performed a literature search using the search terms:

“Quasi-experimental”, “Quasi”, “Experimental”, “Entrepreneurship Education”,

“Entrepreneurship”, and “Education” in various combinations. This has been done in the

“Science direct database”. The same searches have been performed in Google, searching

for pdf documents. Reports from JA-YE have been given to me by colleagues in the

organization. The author acknowledges not having access to all relevant databases. This is

overcome by a literature triangulation with the literature search performed by the World

Economic Forum (WEF 2011). The research-front is usually found in proceedings of

conferences, to which the author has given only minor attention.

3.1 Quasi Experimental studies. Peterman and Kennedy (2003): This survey uses EET as its theoretical framework. Data

are collected from students at 17 secondary schools in Australia. The students are between

15 and 18 years old. The treatment group of 109 participated in a JA-YE student mini

company (SMC) concept, while the control group of 111 students did not. The

entrepreneurial intention was measured using a single item Yes/No question (see Table 1).

The perceived feasibility, desirability and prior entrepreneurial experience were also

measured. They conclude that participating in a JA-YE programme raises the desirability,

feasibility and intentions for entrepreneurship.

Oostrebeek et al. (2010): In contrast to Peterman and Kennedy (2003), this study finds that

participating in a JA-YE programme in the Netherlands did not increase the entrepreneurial

intentions, but decreased them significantly. Their data are collected from a vocational

college with two campuses, one campus with a traditional entrepreneurship education and

one with the JA-YE student mini company as their pedagogical platform. The number of

students in the treatment group was 104 and the control group was 146. The age distribution

range is from under 19 (25%) to over 21 (7%). The entrepreneurial intention was measured

by a single statement and answered on a seven point Likert scale (see Table 1). The authors

conclude that the programme does not have the intended effect, since participating in the

programme decreases the entrepreneurial intentions. The research does not have an explicit

theoretical platform but it uses the ESCAN instrument (Driessen and Zwart, 1999), which is a

validated self-assessment test based on 114 items and widely used in the Netherlands.

Souitaris et al. (2007): This study uses TPB as its theoretical framework. The authors’ data

is from two major European universities with excellent reputations. One located in England

and the other in France. The students are recruited from the science and engineering

departments. There are 124 students participating in the entrepreneurship programme and

126 in the control group. The authors add several interesting aspects such as the cross

cultural effect (England vs. France) as well as the importance of the various elements in the

programme. They isolate three factors: learning; inspiration, and incubation recourses. Their

survey instrument follows Kolvereid (1996) and measures the entrepreneurial intention,

attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. Their main conclusion is that the

programme increases the entrepreneurial intention. They also conclude that inspiration, an

emotional construct, is the most influential benefit of the programme.

McStay (2008): She performs her study amongst Australian undergraduate Business

students. The sample is 190 students from an entrepreneurship programme in the treatment

group and 239 from a strategic management program as control group. She uses a

combination of EET and SCT and measures previous entrepreneurial experience, perceived

desirability of self-employment, perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and self-employment

intentions. The entrepreneurial intention is measured using a 5-item instrument, developed

by Kruger and Carlsrud (1993), which should be answered on a 5-point Likert scale.

She finds that the perceived desirability of self-employment and the self-employment

intentions increase significantly for the treatment group, whereas the perceived

entrepreneurial self-efficacy does not. She also finds that students participating in an

entrepreneurship education programme without previous entrepreneurial experience will

benefit more than student with such experience.

3.2 Other relevant studies.

Von Graevnitz et al. (2010) have collected data from participants in a mandatory course in

Entrepreneurship at the Business department of two German universities. Their study is not

quasi experimental, but the study is very interesting since it brings in a new concept and a

new theoretical approach. They sample 196 students before and after the course. The

entrepreneurial intentions are measured using a single item question with a seven-point

Likert scale (see Table 1). Their findings seem to confirm the findings from Oosterbeek et al.

(2010); that the entrepreneurial intention is lower after the course is finished. The authors

develop a signal theory and point to the possibility that the entrepreneurship course helps

students to become aware of their aptitude for entrepreneurship.

Dohse and Walter (2010) have sampled 1,949 male students from 65 universities and 30

regions in Germany. Their theoretical framework is TPB. The students are recruited from two

engineering fields and business. They used a hierarchical linear modelling technique in order

to examine how entrepreneurial intentions vary across university departments as a function

of individual, institutional and regional influence. They also distinguish between two modes of

entrepreneurship teaching: a reflective mode, based on lectures; and an active mode based

on activity and participation. The entrepreneurial intentions have been measured using the

instrument from Kolvereid (1996). Their findings can be summarized as follows. The impact

of entrepreneurship education is dependent on the region where the university is located.

Active modes of entrepreneurship education will always increase the entrepreneurial

intention, whereas more reflective modes are regional dependent. They conclude that

students attending entrepreneurship education at university are more likely to develop

positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship, but are not more likely to feel encouraged or

more competent to do so. They recommend that entrepreneurship educators design their

programmes carefully, so as to be active and in alignment with industry in the region.

Henley (2007) draws on data from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) 1998-2002,

sampled at 12 months intervals. A total number of 13,751 transitions to self-employment

were detected. The majority of transitions were not preceded by a statement of aspirations

for self-employment one year earlier. He finds that aspirations are associated with negative

displacement factors such as low job satisfaction. He did not find any association between

aspiration and intentional activities such as active saving or entrepreneurial training.

Regional variances in aspiration were detected.

Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006) have performed a longitudinal study of 297 Norwegian

entrepreneurs. Their findings support the theory of reasoned action (TRA), but reject TPB.

Self-employment was measured as a continuous construct, measured by the number of

average weekly hours spent working in business.

Klinger and Schűdelin (2011) examined the effect of business training on expanding an

existing business or starting a new one in Central America. The study is quasi-experimental,

and the participants are adults. The data are collected from training programmes in El

Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala in 2002 to 2005. The sample consists of 655 applicants

to training workshops sampled at two times. They find that the probability of opening a new

business, or expanding an old business, were 4 to 9% in the control group (rejected

applicants), whereas the results from the treatment group ere 25 to 56% higher.

Zhao et al. 2010 performed a meta-analysis of the research literature on the relation

between personality and entrepreneurial intentions. They find that the strongest effects come

from openness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion and agreeableness. The

personality factors account for 36% of the variation in the meta-analysis.

3.3 Measurements of entrepreneurial intentions. From the literature review it is clear that the various instruments used for measuring

entrepreneurial intentions are quite different. The lack of a reliable, validated and

internationally reliable metric for measuring individual entrepreneurial intentions has been

pointed out by Thompson (2009). A more complete literature review of entrepreneurial

intentions can be found there. His methodology for developing and validating a new

instrument may be used as an example as to how entrepreneurial researchers may progress

further.

The various instruments used in the literature review in the last section are given in Table 1. Due care should be taken in order to compare results from these studies. The term

entrepreneurship is sometimes used as an equivalent to self-employment. Other studies, e.g.

Oosterbeek et al. (2010) use the word as an equivalent to owning or starting up your own

business

Another issue is the stability of entrepreneurial intentions over time. Can you compare the

entrepreneurial intentions of a 15-year-old secondary school student with the ones from a 30-

year-old business school graduate? Degeorge and Fayolle (2008) measure the

entrepreneurial intentions using the 3-item instrument from Kolvereid (1996), similar to the

one used by Souitaris et al. (2007). The data come from 55 students who voluntarily

participated in an entrepreneurial awareness programme 7, 3 and 1 years before the survey.

The average age of the respondents was 27.6 years when answering the survey. The

authors conclude that the entrepreneurial intentions are stable over time.

Author Instrument Kreuger et al. 2000 Estimate the probability that you own your own business

in the next 5 years. 0-100

Peterman and Kennedy 2003

Do you think you will ever start a business? Yes/No

McStay 2008 (from Kruger and Carlsrud 1993)

I am very interested in setting up my own business. I am working towards opening my own business. I intend to start my own business within the next two years. I intend to start my own business within the next five years. I intend to start my own business within the next ten years.

Likert: 1-5

Souitaris et al. 2007 (from Kolvereid 1996)

If you were to choose between running your own business and being employed by someone, what would you prefer? How likely is it that you will pursue a career as self-employed? How likely is it that you will pursue a career as employed in an organization?

1=Would prefer to be employed by someone 7= Would like to be self-employed 1=unlikely to 7=likely 1=unlikely to 7=likely

Von Graevnitz et al. 2010

Would you like to own your own enterprise at some point? I intend to found my own enterprise within the next 5-10 years.

Yes/No Likert: 1-7

Oosterbeek et al. 2010

I expect to start up a new firm or take over an existing firm within the next 15 years

Likert: 1-7

Thompson 2009 Thinking of yourself, how true or untrue is it that you: 1. Intend to set up a company in the future 2. Never search for business start-up

opportunities(R) 3. Are saving money to start a business 4. Do not read books on how to set up a firm (R) 5. Have no plans to launch your own business (R) 6. Spend time learning about starting a firm

Likert :1-6 1=very untrue 2=untrue 3=slightly untrue 4=slightly true 5=true 6=very true

Table 1. Various instruments used for measuring entrepreneurial intentions.

3.4 Entrepreneurship education: The increased interest in entrepreneurship education shown by various stakeholders has

mainly been motivated by the intended results of entrepreneurship: the creation of new

business; new innovations, and economic growth (Martinez et al. 2010). Pittaway and Cope

(2006) have performed a systematic review of the outcomes of entrepreneurship education.

They call for entrepreneurship educators to move from a period of growth into a period of

reflection. They point out that there are still definitional and conceptual uncertainties in this

research. They show that many of the publications in peer-reviewed journals still lack clear

theoretical foundations. They also repeat the need for more longitudinal studies and call for

assessment of the educational programmes. Fayolle et al. (2006) have suggested a method

of assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education. Their theoretical framework is based

on TPB. The World Economic Forum (WEF, 2011) calls for data on the short-term as well as

long-term impact of entrepreneurship education. They find that such data are critical for

building evidence-based policies and increasing the chance for governments to adopt and

maintain funding for such education.

Dohse and Walter (2010) find that there is a significant difference in outcomes (in term of

entrepreneurial intention) with regard to whether the learning activities are active, rather than

reflective. This is much in line with the JA-YE concept of student mini-companies.

The literature on best practice, and examples from highly rated entrepreneurship education

are often characterized by a high level of student activities (Neck and Green, 2011). Gilbert

(2010) states that entrepreneurship education in higher education should be creative, risky

and exciting. Desai et al. (2010) finds that student activities with frequent feedback and close

cooperation with the industry are key factors for success in entrepreneurship education. A

model for the involvement with industry and government can be found in Hatlø et al. (2011).

Mitchelmore and Rowley (2008) have performed a literature review of the research literature

on entrepreneurial competencies, which is crucial for entrepreneurship educators. They show

that concept such as “entrepreneur”, “entrepreneurship”, and “entrepreneurial” all remain

under active debate and that the various stakeholders tend to interpret competences from

their own perspective.

3.5 Macro effects of entrepreneurship education: The World Economic Forum report on entrepreneurship education (WEF 2009) states that

they were not able to identify any studies linking entrepreneurship education to economic

growth. However a Swedish study followed 166,606 students who participated in SMCs in

upper secondary school from 1980 to 2007 (JA Sweden, 2011). The study followed the “real”

companies founded by these SMC participants between 1990-2007. This is done through

combining several registers (LISA information of all Swedish residents between 16 and 64

years and FDB the Swedish company register). When comparing companies funded by

persons with SMC experience with a control group, the main findings are as follows.

The number of employees in companies started by JA Alumni is 3-7% higher than the control

group. There is no significant difference in entry into new proprietorships/partnerships

between the groups. When considering entry into new incorporations, JA Alumni have a 60%

higher rate for men and 80% higher for women compared to the control group. Calculations

of revenues in firms started by JA Alumni show that these are 20% higher for incorporations

and 6% higher for proprietorships/partnerships (calculations after 4 years of existence).The

survival rate for companies started by JA alumni are from 1-3% higher.

A meta-analysis of 140 studies regarding the impact of education on entrepreneurship

selection in developing countries has been performed (van der Sluis et al. 2005). They find

strong and positive support for education on selection into entrepreneurship, but they do not

distinguish between entrepreneurship education and education in general.

4 Discussion

Based on the review in the previous section: What do we know?

There seems to be a general understanding that there is a lack of clarity in definitions,

concepts and methods. This is one of the main reasons for the slow progress in this research

field. The challenges with regards to small sample sizes, cultural biases, several theoretical

frameworks, and multiple time scales still have to be overcome. But, if we take one step back

and look at the findings through the eyes of an entrepreneurship educator, what do we see? I

will sum up in three paragraphs.

Outcomes of entrepreneurship education, in the form of increased intention

The findings seem to be contradictory. Three studies report an increase in intention

(Peterman & Kennedy 2003; Souitaris et al. 2007; McStay 2008), whereas two report a

decrease in intention (Oosterbeek et al. 2010, von Graevnitz et al. 2010). The findings from

Dohse and Walter (2010) can explain this with regional and institutional effects. It might be

the case that the data from Oosterbeek et al. 2010 and von Graevniz et al. 2010 are

collected from regions with low entrepreneurial activity and low knowledge spillover from

industry. There may also be explanations at the institutional level. However, we should bear

in mind that measurement instruments that are not validated have been used (Thompson

2009). There is strong evidence that entrepreneurship education may increase the

entrepreneurial intention of students. This raises an interesting question. How long will it take

to increase the entrepreneurial intention? Degeorge and Fayolle (2008) report that they find a

significant increase in entrepreneurial intentions amongst engineering students after a one-

day entrepreneurship awareness event. The findings from Klinger and Schüdeling (2011)

show that the outcome of entrepreneurship training is significant.

Effects of various types of pedagogical approaches to entrepreneurship education

There seems to be a general consensus from research, as well as from practitioners, that an

active form of pedagogy is important in entrepreneurship education. The findings from Dohse

and Walter (2010) underline the importance of activities rather than reflection. If we consider

these findings in the light of relevant theories, the following can be noted. From SCT we

know that the four predictors for task specific self-efficacy are: actual task performance;

vicarious experience; social encouragement, and overcoming anxiety for performing the task

in a new environment. Active modes, like the JA-YE concept of student mini-companies have

all these characteristics (Hatlø et al. 2011). From TPB and TRA we find that attitudes as well

as subjective norms are important for the formation of entrepreneurial intention. Both of these

constructs have emotional as well as social aspects. Souitaris et al. 2007, calls for designing

activities to change “hearts and minds”. The findings from Dohse and Walter (2010)

underline the importance of the entrepreneurship education being aligned with the local

industry. If we use an EET framework, we could say that the education should be designed

so that it increases the perceived desirability through activities, inspiration, and emotions. At

the same time the learning activities should systematically increase the perceived feasibility

by increasing knowledge, networks and practical skills. There are strong indications that all

educational programmes should contain elements like setting up a mini-company, internships

in real companies, and a high degree of interaction with entrepreneurial stakeholders and

local industry.

The macroeconomic effects of entrepreneurship education

The Swedish study is convincing, giving an almost remarkably higher revenue from JA-YE

alumni companies (20%). It should be emphasized that this longitudinal study follows high

school students. A lot of questions still arise: Is it macroeconomically profitable to have

entrepreneurship education at university level? Is there a cumulative effect of exposure to

entrepreneurship (WEF, 2009)? Anyway, this impressive study is, to my knowledge, the first

attempt to show the macroeconomic result of an entrepreneurship programme. Such use of

registered data shows a fruitful way ahead for research and long-term monitoring of the

actual economic effect of entrepreneurship education. It is often forgotten that the proof of

the pudding is in the eating, and that the effect on entrepreneurship education should be

generated revenue rather than entrepreneurial intentions.

5 Conclusion

Entrepreneurship is a phenomenon involving a wide range of scale, from genetics to

macroeconomics. The time scales involved in an entrepreneurship process range from an

inspired second when a dream of a new business is born, to a lifetime of hard work in

implementing the dream in an organisation. Most of the factors and scales work together in

complex, transient, and nonlinear ways and there are many things we need to know in order

to develop a knowledge-based entrepreneurship education. However, this review shows that

several of the findings from the entrepreneurship education research should be taken into

account:

At the individual level the educator should pay attention to the students’ emotions,

feelings, dreams, and personality. Learning activities should be designed to change

“hearts and minds” (Souitaris et al. 2007).

At an organizational level the educator should let the students have authentic

experiences, actively working together with their peers and with stakeholders from

industry. This can be done using internships in entrepreneurial companies, business

plan competitions, student mini-companies (JA-YE) or other arrangements to ensure

that the student meets and get hands on experience and feedback from industry.

At the national and regional level the educational institutions should closely align their

curricula and learning activities with stakeholders from government and local industry.

This can be done using cases, examples, and guest lecturers from the same cultural

context and the same stakeholders as the students will face when their education is

completed (Dohse and Walter, 2010).

The author would like to acknowledge the helpful advises and comments from Alain Fayolle

on the content and from Nigel Willoughby and Sunniva Sveino Strand on the language.

6 References

Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human

Decision Processes, 50, 1-63.

Bandura, A., 1986, Social foundations of thought and Actions: Asocial Cognitive Theory:

Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura A., 1997, Self-efficacy; The exercise of Control: Freeman, New York. Béchard, J.P., and Denis, G. (2005), Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The

Case of Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 4 (1): 22–43.

Bird, B. (1988), Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intentions, Academy of

Management Review, 13(3), 442-453.

Bruyat, C., and Julien, P-A, (2000), Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship,

Journal of business venturing, 16, 165-180.

Christensen, C., and Eyring, H. J., (2011), The Innovative University, Changing the DNA of

Higher Education from Inside Out, Josset-Bass:

Cook, D., and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field

Settings, Houghton Mifflin Company, USA

Dainow, R. (1986), Training and education of entrepreneurs: the current state of the

literature, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 3(4), 10-23.

Degeorge, J. M., and Fayolle, A., (2008), Is entrepreneurial intentions stable through time?

First insight from a sample of French students. Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Small Business

5(1), 1-27.

Desai, H., Ding, H. B., and Fedder, D., (2010), Teaching scientists entrepreneurship: A

dialectic approach, Journal of Enterprise Culture, 18(2), 193-203.

DeTienne, D.R., and Chandler, G.N. (2004), Opportunity identification and its role in the

entrepreneurial classroom: a pedagogical approach and empirical test, Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 242-57.

Dickson, P.H., Solomon, G.T., and Weaver, K.M. (2008), Entrepreneurial selection and

success: does education matter? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development

15(2), 239-258.

Dohse, D., and Walter, S. G. (2010). The Role of entrepreneurship education and regional

context in forming Entrepreneurial Intentions. Document de Treball de’l’IEB 2010/18, IEB

Institut d’Economia de Barcelona.

Driessen, M. P., and Zwart, P. S., (1999), The role of the entrepreneur in small business

success: the Entrepreneurship Scan, working paper, University of Groningen.

Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (2000), The Dynamics of innovation from National systems

and “mode 2” to a Triple helix of university-industry-government-relations, Research Policy

29, 109-123.

Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., and Lassas-Clerc, N., (2006), Assessing the impact of

entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial

Training, 30(9), 701-720,

Fishbein, M, and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intentions and behaviour: An introduction to

theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fitzsimmons, J. E., and Douglas, E. J. (2010), Interaction between feasibility and desirability

in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 431-440.

Gibb, A., Haskins, G., and Robertson, I. (2009), Leading the entrepreneurial University,

National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship.

Gilbert, D, (2010), Integrating theory and practice for student entrepreneurs: an applied

learning model, Journal of Enterprise Culture 18(1), 83-106.

Goreman, G., Hanlon, D., and King, W. (1997), Some research perspectives on

entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business

management: a ten year literature review, International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 56-78.

Henly, A. (2007), Entrepreneurial aspirations and transition into self-employment: evidence

from British longitudinal data, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19, 253-280.

Hansemark, O.C., (1998), The effect of an entrepreneurship programme on need for

achievement and locus of control of reinforcement, International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behavior and Research, 4(1), 28-44.

Hatlø, B. M., Strand, Ø. and Mork et al. (2011). Student enterprises, educated through the

triple helix circulation, Journal Advances in higher education, 3(1), 41-52.

JA Sweden (2011), Practice Makes Perfect? A longitudinal Investigation of Junior

Achievement (JA) Sweden Alumini and their Entrepreneurial Careers, 1990-2007, JA

Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden.

Klinger, B., and Schűnder, M. (2011), Can Entrepreneurial Activity be Taught? Quasi-

Experimental Evidence from Central America, World Development, 39(9), 1592-1610.

Kolvereid, L. (1996), Prediction of Employment Status Choice Intentions, Entrepreneurship

Theory & Practice, Fall, 47-57.

Kolvereid, L., and Isaksen, E. (2006), New Business start-up and subsequent entry into self-

employment, Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 866-885.

Kruger, N.F., and Carlsrud, A. (1993), Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of

planned behavior, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5, 316-323.

Kruger, N, F., Reilly, M., and Carlsrud, A. (2000), Competing models of entrepreneurial

intentions, Journal of Business venturing, 14(5-6), 411-432.

Kuhn, T. (1974), Logics of Discovery or Psychology of Research?, in Criticism and the

growth of knowledge, Lakatos, I, and Musgrave, A, (Eds), Cambridge University Press.

Martinez, A.M., Levie, J., Kelly, D.J., and Sæmundsson. R.J., and Schøtt, T. (2010), A Global

Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education and Training, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

Special Report.

McMullen, I., and Scheperd, D. (2006), Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in

the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(3),132-152.

McStay, D. (2008), An investigation of undergraduate student self-employment intention and

the impact of entrepreneurship education and previous entrepreneurial experiences, PhD

Thesis School of Business, Bond University, Australia.

Meyer, G. D., (2011), The Reinvention of Academic Entrepreneurship, Journal of small Business Management, 49(1), 1-8. Mitchelmore, S., and Rowley, J. (2008), Entrepreneurial competencies: a literature review

and development agenda, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,

16(2), 92-111.

Neck, H. M. and Green, P. G. (2011), Entrepreneurship education: Known Worlds and New

Frontiers, Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70

Oosterbeek, H, Van Praag, M., and Ijsselstein, A. (2009). The Impact of Entrepreneurship

Education on Entrepreneurship Skills and Motivation. European Economic Review, 54, 442-

454.

Peterman, N., and Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprising Education: Influencing Students’

Perceptions of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17, 129–144.

Pitteway, L., and Cope, J, (2006). Entrepreneurship Education: A systematic Review of the

Evidence, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Working paper 002/2006.

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008), Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar.

Shapero, A. (1984), The entrepreneurial event, in Kent, C. (ed.) The environment for

entrepreneurship, Lexington, MA, 21-44.

Shapero, A., and Sokol, L. (1982), The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In Kent, C.,

Sexton, D., and Vesper, K. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, 72-90.

Short, J. C., Ketchen Jr.,D. J., Combs, J. G., and Ireland, R. D. (2010), Research Methods in

Entrepreneurship, Opportunities and Challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1),

6-15.

Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., and Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do Entrepreneurship Programs Raise

Entrepreneurial Intention of Science and Engineering Students? The Effect of Learning,

Inspiration and Resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 566–591.

Thompson, E. R. (2009). Individual Intent: Construct Clarification and Development of an

Internationally Reliable Metric. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(3), 669-694.

Von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D., and Weber, R. (2010), The effect of entrepreneurship

education, Journal of Economics Behaviour & Organization, 76, 90-112.

Van der Sluis, J., van Praag, M, and Vijverberg, W. (2005), Entrepreneurship Selection and

Performance: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Education in Developing Economics. The

world bank economic review, 19(2), 225-261.

World Economic Forum. (2009). Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs: Unlocking

Entrepreneurial Capabilities to Meet the Global Challenges of the 21st Century: A Report of

the Global Education Initiative. Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

World Economic Forum (2011), Unlocking Entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global

challenges of the 21st century, Final Report on the Entrepreneurship Education Workstream,

Switzerland: World Economic Forum, June 2011

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., and Lumpkin, G.T. (2010). The relation of Personality to

Entrepreneurial Intentions and Performance: A Meta-Analysis Review. Journal of

management 36(2), 381-404.

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., and Hills, G. E. (2005), The mediating role of Self-Efficacy in the

Development of Entrepreneurial intentions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1265-1272.