Enterprise for All

7/28/2019 Enterprise for All

1/28

Enterprise for all? The fragility ofenterprise provision across

Englands HEIsPaul Hannon

National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham, UK

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this paper is to present the findings of a comprehensive study of enterprise andentrepreneurship education provision in Englands 131 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Thepaper is based upon the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) mapping study offormal and informal activity conducted in 2006.

Design/methodology/approach All HEIs in England were invited to complete an online

institutional mapping template seeking data on enterprise and entrepreneurship accreditedprogrammes/modules, non-accredited enterprise and entrepreneurship provision and otherinstitutional characteristics that support enterprise and entrepreneurship development. Theresearch team maintained regular contact with all HEIs to maximise participation and to providesupport where requested. A number of institutional visits were made by the research team both tointroduce the study and to assist data entry where there was limited resource. The approach led to thecollection of a unique and robust data set.

Findings The results illuminate the scale and scope of dedicated provision for enterprise andentrepreneurship across the HE sector in England. Of all institutions, 94 per cent participated,ensuring that these results are analogous to a census report. The results further highlight thepenetration of the student population and in particular the nature of their engagement.

Originality/value This is the first time such an approach has been taken in England and theresults are illuminating for academics, policy-makers (particularly regional development agencies) andenterprise educators. The data provide an evidence base for supporting further development needs

across the HE sector and offer opportunities for benchmarking and the exchange of practice,knowledge and experience.

Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Universities, Students, Higher education, England

Paper type Case study

IntroductionThe UK Governments Dearing Committee Report recommendation proposed in 1997that, in the UK, higher education institutions . . . . consider the scope for encouragingentrepreneurship through innovative approaches to programme design and throughspecialist postgraduate programmes (Recommendation 40, NCIHE, 1997). This policyreport, and further government reports on competitiveness and small business (DTI,1998), increased Government emphasis on initiatives that focused on the teaching andlearning of enterprise and entrepreneurship in universities and colleges, and also byintroducing enterprise across the compulsory education system at primary andsecondary levels (Davies, 2002).

The Department of Trade and Industrys Science Enterprise Challenge Fund in 1999provided universities with funding for entrepreneurship education for science andengineering students (as well as for other knowledge transfer activities). This policyinitiative was further reinforced by the Lambert Review (2003) which noted the

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm

Enterprisefor all?

183

Journal of Small Business and

Enterprise Development

Vol. 14 No. 2, 2007

pp. 183-210

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1462-6004

DOI 10.1108/14626000710746646


2/28

importance of entrepreneurial skills especially for science and technology students(Lambert, 2003).

Overall the UK government is broadly supporting the embedding of enterprise andentrepreneurship capacities across education and through society more generally in

response to the pressures arising from the phenomenon of globalisation (Gibb andHannon, 2007). This effort, through a number of Government Departments the DTIsOffice of Science and Technology and Small Business Service; Department of Culture,Media and Sport; Department of Education and Skills is seeking to affectapproaches, behaviours and practices toward science, engineering and technologyeducation, the creative disciplines and the more traditional start-up business focus ofbusiness and management faculties.

This is echoing a wider European emphasis on fostering entrepreneurial mindsetsas embedded in European Commission policy and projects (EU, 2000; 2002; 2004a;2004b). A clear illustration of the importance given to entrepreneurship in education atmember state level and an example of cross-Ministerial strategic planning is theNorwegian Government (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006). All three key

Ministries for Education, Trade and Local Government have produced a joint policy forembedding entrepreneurship across the whole Norwegian education system, includingclear goals and measures. This includes higher education and the need for teachertraining.

Clearly, over the past decade the UK government has done much to try toshape the way that the HE sector serves the wider aims of society. Many publiclyfunded initiatives have been targeted on processes for the commercialisation ofinstitutional intellectual property (for example through the Office of Science andInnovation, previously the Office of Science and Technology[1], and throughKnowledge Transfer Partnerships[2] previously, Teaching Company Schemes).

Some funds aim to encourage wider engagement of the HE sector with thestakeholder community, in particular with regional and local development agencies

and local business. There have also been substantial efforts to support development ofentrepreneurship education for graduates through various national governmentinitiatives (e.g. DfES, 2003; DTI, 1998; DTI, 2000) including Higher EducationInnovation Funds in 2001, 2004 and 2006/7[3], Science Enterprise Challenge in 1999and 2001[4], the creation of Higher Education Academy Subject Centres in 2004,previously the Learning and Teaching Subject Network[5] and more recently, specificCentres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in 2005 and funded for five years[6].There are growing calls for entrepreneurship education in the disciplines that comprisethe creative industries (DCMS, 2006).

To promote graduate entrepreneurship across the board, the National Councilfor Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) was established in 2004 with funding fromthe Small Business Service and Department for Education and Skills. In a broadercontext, government support for the Enterprise Insight coalition campaign aims topositively influence the aspirations and attitudes of youth towards an enterprisingspirit and the development of more enterprising attributes.

Those engaged within the UK HE sector will have observed the significant growthin the provision of support for enterprise and entrepreneurship development withinHEIs during the past decade, far exceeding the rate of growth in previous decades andmirroring, although in a delayed fashion, the patterns of growth reported in US HEIs(Hannon et al., 2006; Hannon, 2007).

JSBED14,2

184


3/28

This growth, unlike within the structured environment of compulsory educationwith its national curriculum framework, is driven by individual institutions andcollections of institutions, or more precisely by passionate champions of enterprise andentrepreneurship at all levels within these HEIs. Fuelled by increasing access to

government funding activity the levels of activity have increased as demonstratedthrough specific institutional cases and through reporting mechanisms for monitoringfund disbursements.

During this period the creation, development, exchange and transfer ofinstitutional knowledge, practice and experience has led to the introduction of new,or the re-vitalisation of existing, provision to support a latent and emergingdemand from faculty, students, employers and external agencies for enterpriseand entrepreneurship education and learning (Hannon, 2007).

Entrepreneurship in higher education is competing for funds against otherdemands. Significant pressures exist in the current climate on student recruitment,retention, widening participation, employability and impact and all within anincreasingly competitive global education environment.

Government departments are also competing for funds to drive forward a diversityof policy needs. Entrepreneurship in general and entrepreneurship educationspecifically competes for these funds and resources at institutional, regional andnational levels.

In the current economic climate it is uncertain how and from where this agendawill continue to be supported. In the UK, unlike the US, there is a highdependency upon public resources at the European, state and sub-regional levels.The issue of funding was raised in the DfES commissioned report of entrepreneurship education in the England undertaken by Levie (LBS, 1999).This is then not a new challenge.

Clearly, knowing what progress has been made in influencing the entrepreneurshipagenda within HE is crucial in providing a robust evidence base. This informs and

supports future policy decisions about continued investment in this growingphenomenon and develops understanding of the potential for this to deliver expectedand desired returns.

Within the scope of this paper it will not be possible to address the broad issuesraised in this introduction. At the state level it is important to understand the scale andscope of current provision and support; how it is changing and developing; what theincreased activity is delivering, or is aiming to deliver, in terms of entrepreneurialoutcomes; how this contributes to the policy objectives through which investmentshave been made; and within the growing and emerging wealth of knowledge,experience and practice what is good, better or best practice and how do we know.

The newly formed National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE), a UKgovernment backed body aiming to shape the environment for graduate

entrepreneurship, is active in tackling these challenges (visit: www.ncge.org.uk). Onecritical factor in understanding nationally and regionally what needs to be done tomove forward is firstly to know the current position.

The aim of this paper therefore is to present the findings of the current support forenterprise development in Englands 131 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Thepaper is based upon the NCGE mapping study of formal and informal activityconducted in 2006.

This paper shows the differences in enterprise education and non-accreditedentrepreneurship support. The mapping exercise gives NCGE, Regional Development

Enterprisefor all?

185


4/28

Agencies (RDAs) and HM Treasury a clear and accurate picture of current primaryactivity. Therefore, this is of value to HEIs and enterprise educators who will benefitthrough enhanced understanding and insight and a comprehensive evidence base.

This introductory section has provided the rationale for the paper. Section 2

provides a background to the paper through reference to other relevant studies; Section3 outlines the approach adopted; Sections 4 and 5 present the study findings withrespect to accredited and non-accredited provision; Section 6 draws main conclusions;and Section 7 discusses key implications and next steps.

BackgroundThere has been a manifold increase in demand for graduate entrepreneurship coursesin the US and UK. In the US, 16 business schools provided such courses in 1970compared to over 400 in 1995 (ISBE, 2004). Indeed, Hannon (2005) argues thatentrepreneurship education is much more deeply embedded in US HEIs, exemplifiedby the fact that in the UK in 2003/4 UCAS identified 92 entrepreneurship coursescompared to 4,500 business courses.

The recent study commissioned by the NCGE Consortium[7] conducted by Bothamand Mason (2006) identifies that in the United States enterprise education in highereducation has grown dramatically since the early 1980s. From 300 in the early 1980s,the number of Universities offering entrepreneurship related courses grew to over 1600by the early 21st century. The number of endowed entrepreneurship chairs reachedalmost 240 by 1999 and just over 400 by 2004. This widespread teaching ofentrepreneurship is perhaps one of the reasons for the entrepreneurial nature of the USeconomy.

As the OECD (2001) observes: For any person who makes his or her way throughthe education system to an undergraduate degree, a lack of knowledge aboutentrepreneurship can no longer have much force as an entry barrier to new businessformation. A person must make some effort to avoid entrepreneurship awareness ortraining.[8]

The growth in literature on entrepreneurship and more recently on graduateentrepreneurship continues and has led to a number of significant reviews over thepast three decades (Dainow, 1986; Gorman et al., 1997; Hannon, 2005; Pittaway andCope, 2005). However, the UK is not like the US, where state-of-the-nation reviews ofenterprise education have been undertaken for decades (see for example, inter alia:Solomon et al., 2002; Solomon et al., 1994; Solomon and Fernald, 1991; Solomon, 1988;1986; Vesper and Gartner, 1997; Vesper and McMullan, 1988; Vesper, 1987; 1986;Plaschka and Welsch, 1990). In the UK reviews of activity in supporting enterprise andentrepreneurship development within UK HEIs are few (see for example: Hannon, 2007;Price et al., 2004; LBS, 1999), as across Europe (Wilson, 2004; Hytti, 2004; Hytti andOGorman, 2004). These national and cross-national studies have tended to be one-offprojects. This difference is mainly due to the access to funding in the US from bodiessuch as the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation that significantly supports theseactivities, for example, at the Universities of George Washington and Illinois.

The most notable study of HEIs in England was undertaken by Jonathan Levie,University of Strathclyde, and reported in 1999 (LBS, 1999). It was an extensive surveybut unfortunately it has not been repeated. Selected findings from this study are usedas a general UK comparator in this article.

JSBED14,2

186


5/28

ApproachAt the end of 2005 English RDAs identified that a better understanding of theprovision of HE support for student enterprise and graduate entrepreneurship wasrequired to inform the development of regional development policies and actions. No

consistent and comparable data were easily accessible. The production of regionalmaps of provision was seen to potentially support benchmarking and the exchangeof good practices.

With the support of the RDAs, NCGE, in early 2006, devised a mapping surveyinstrument and commissioned a team of researchers to support data collection,analyses and reporting[9]. The initial design was influenced by a workshop withexperts held in Birmingham, UK; access to the Kauffman Foundation surveyinstruments; and a review of earlier UK reports and studies (Price et al., 2004; LBS,1999). The instrument was subsequently piloted at two HEIs.

The survey aimed to undertake a snapshot capture of data within the academic year2005-06. In addition to capturing basic data concerning the location and size of theinstitution, the general structure of the main survey instrument examined three key

areas:

(1) All credit bearing programmes and full modules relating to enterprise andentrepreneurship education at all levels and modes of delivery. This sectionfurther included data collection on the first registration of the provision,numbers of participating students and their profiles, the primary learningoutcomes, the leading faculty or centre, and the primary target participants.Further data were sought about the teaching resources engaged in thedelivering of the identified provision. The same data fields were used to collectdata regards any planned credit bearing provision.

(2) All non credit bearing provision relating to enterprise and entrepreneurshipeducation and support. This section listed 24 categories of provision and

collected data against each category for the year started, numbers of studentsparticipating, the frequency of the activity, the target participants, the leadingfaculty or centre, and the primary funding sources.

(3) The third section collected data against 28 institutional characteristics that areindicative of support for enterprise and entrepreneurship. The instrumentsought to clarify if, or not, each institution possessed any of the listedcharacteristics.

A full copy of the online template used in this study can be viewed at: www.ncge.org.uk/im/register.htm

The approach to securing full engagement by HEIs in providing relevant andaccurate data was initiated through personal visits by NCGE Directors to many of the

HEIs in seven of the nine regions of England, including meetings with RDA staff toupdate on the approach, progress and timings. In the remaining two regions,South-East and London, where personal visits were limited mainly due to the volumeof institutions, NCGE Directors briefed HEI contacts directly by phone.

After initial contact, by visit or by phone, a follow-up email provided details of theonline mapping template, the URL link to gain access and a unique institutionalpassword that enabled the HEI contact to enter and save their data. The uniquepassword only allowed access to an agreed specific dedicated template.

Enterprisefor all?

187


6/28

NCGE staff and the research team maintained regular telephone contact tomaximise completion and to provide appropriate support (including, for example,answering questions and resolving any issues that arose). In most cases, contacts wereable to complete the online template. However, in a limited number of cases, personal

visits were made by the researchers to support the contacts with data collection andtemplate entry where necessary.

All data provided was self-reported and the survey undertaken on a voluntarilybasis. The support and co-operation of participating HEIs is acknowledged by NCGE.94 per cent of the HEIs identified for this study entered data in the online template.This dataset therefore represents the most recent and comprehensive national dataavailable and thereby illuminates the landscape of support for student enterprise andgraduate entrepreneurship across Englands HEIs.

All accredited/non-accredited enterprise and entrepreneurship supportprovisionAll accredited provision: general

In 2006, there are 889 current enterprise programmes or modules reported by HEIsacross the English regions. Figure 1 illustrates reported provision by region andFigure 2 presents the percentage of total provision reported in each region.

Clearly, in England the regions vary in the numbers of HEIs within administrativeregional boundaries and vary from as low as 5 in the North-East to over 40 in the

Figure 1.Accreditedprogrammes/modules ineach region

Figure 2.Accreditedprogrammes/modules ineach region (%)

JSBED14,2

188


7/28

London region. Table I shows the breakdown of HEIs and student populations byregion. Furthermore, this table highlights the total numbers of students engaged in allreported enterprise and entrepreneurship support activity by region and furtheranalysed by type of activity, i.e. in-curricula programme and full modules and hence

credit-bearing activity, or, extra-curricula and hence non-credit-bearing activity.Overall Table I shows a national penetration of the total HE student population ofthose engaged in reported enterprise activity of 7 per cent, two thirds of whom areengaged in extra-curricula type provision.

All accredited provision: UG versus PG; module versus programmeThe reported data for in-curricula provision are analysed by level of study andcategorised as: Undergraduate levels (UG); Postgraduate levels (PG); and Other, andby mode of delivery: Module; Full Programme.

The data in Figure 3 show that 64 per cent, or almost two-thirds, of all currentreported provision is at the UG level. Similarly, among all 889 programmes/moduleswhich are currently offered in HEIs in England, almost two thirds are provided asmodules, with 43 per cent at UG level and 17 per cent at PG level. Full programmeprovision is just over one-third of all current provision, with 21 per cent at UG level,and 16 per cent at PG level. In addition, about 3 per cent were otherprogrammes/modules generally described as more vocational in nature.

Figure 4 shows provision of accredited enterprise education programmes and fullmodules in each region in comparison to that at the national level. Approximately 20per cent of all modules in the NE are reported as vocational which is influencing

ENG LDN SE SW EE EM WM NW YH NE

Number of participatingHEIs/total in study

123 35 18 12 9 9 11 14 10 5

As a percentage of allHEIs listed for the study(%)

94 90 100 92 100 100 92 93 91 100

Number of students inHE (000s)

1,899 346 412 151 129 170 175 232 183 101

All students in HE as apercentage (%)

100 18 22 8 7 9 9 12 10 5

Number of all reportedstudents engaged inenterprise (000s)

132 18.3 28.2 8.0 15.7 22.1 6.1 15.9 11.9 5.7

As a percentage of allstudents in HE (%)

7 5 7 5 12 13 3 7 7 6

Number of reported

enterprise studentsin-curricula (000s)

44.1 6.2 5.9 2.5 10.2 3.8 1.9 8.0 4.1 1.3

As a percentage of allenterprise students (%)

34 34 21 32 65 17 31 50 35 23

Number of reportedenterprise studentsextra-curricula (000s)

87.9 12.1 22.2 5.5 5.5 18.3 4.2 7.9 7.8 4.3

As a percentage of allenterprise students (%)

66 66 79 68 35 83 69 50 65 77

Table I.Regional distribution of

HEIs and studentengagement in enterprise

Enterprisefor all?

189


8/28

regional enterprise provision at the UG level. The West Midlands region has reported alower level of full PG programmes than other regions. Both the London and the East ofEngland regions report a regional strength in PG enterprise provision.

All accredited provision: primary lead facultiesFigure 5 clearly illustrates that Business Schools are significant as the primary leadproviders in the regions of England, being responsible for nearly 64 per cent of thedelivery of all reported current enterprise provision. Engineering Faculties and Arts,Design and Media Faculties are each reported as the next highest primary leadproviders with less than 10 per cent of all reported current provision.

Figure 4.Total accreditedprogrammes/modules bylevel and mode and byregion

Figure 3.Total accreditedprogrammes/modules byLevel and Mode (%)

JSBED14,2

190


9/28

At the national level, Business Schools clearly dominate in-curricula provision andare more than 7 times more likely to be providing support than the next lead HEFaculties, and significantly higher than other Faculties such as Computer Sciences;Medicine and Health and Social Sciences. There are no reported programmes/modulescurrently provided by Law Faculties.

The regional analyses displayed in Figure 6 highlight the dominance of theBusiness Schools across all regions of England but with clear regional variations.Regions such as South West, Yorkshire and the Humberside, North West, North Eastand London are all reported with a current provision by Business Schools as lowerthan 64 per cent, whilst some regions, in particular the East of England region, report avery high level of provision by its Business Schools.

Provision by other primary lead faculties varies across the regions accordingly.Figure 6 also shows that in the London region a much higher than average provision islead by the Engineering faculties, with other regions also showing higher levels South West, Yorkshire and Humberside and the North East. There are also reportedstrengths in Arts, Design and Media in the North West and South East regions and inthe North East and Yorkshire and Humberside regions it is the Computer ScienceFaculties that provide double the national average. The East Midlands is reported withstrength in provision lead by Pure Science Faculties and the London and South Eastregions both have higher than national average levels of current enterprise provisionthrough Medicine & Health Faculties.

All accredited provision: primary target participantsThe mapping data also report which student groups are the primary targetparticipants for current enterprise and entrepreneurship support provision. Responseshighlight the degree to which provision is generally and broadly open to students withgeneral enterprise tendencies, whether one or more faculties are targeted, if studentsare targeted by named category (female, ethnic, international), or if interests inparticular enterprise activity (social, creative, science) are targeted.

From Figure 7 it is clear that HEIs report that nearly 44 per cent of all currententerprise provision is targeted at student groups at one faculty only, with just over

Figure 5.Total accredited enterpriseprovision by primary lead

faculty (%)

Enterprisefor all?

191


10/28

10 per cent targeting multi-faculty provision. Nearly 21 per cent of all current provisiontargets UG students, almost twice the level of PG students. The reported data inFigure 7 illustrate that very low levels of provision, if any at all, target specific namedstudent categories female, ethnic, international or those specifically interested insocial or creative enterprise. The highest targeted provision is in Science, Engineeringand Technology enterprise (4.4 per cent).

Figure 6.Total accreditedprogrammes/modules byprimary lead faculty:regional analysis (%)

JSBED14,2

192


11/28

The regional analyses of reported primary targeted participants are presented inFigure 8. The primary targeting of students at one faculty is dominant across mostregions, except for the West Midlands and North West regions of England. In these tworegions there is a higher than national average emphasis on primarily targeting UGstudents. As a contrast the South West region proportionally has a major emphasis ontargeting single faculty students as the primary target for current provision.

Nationally, although provision primarily targeting Science, Engineering andTechnology (SET) enterprise is low overall, in the regions there is a higher thanaverage primary targeting of SET in the London and Yorkshire and Humbersideregions, and to a lesser degree in the North West region.

Generally the national picture portrays hardly any current provision that istargeting female, ethnic and international students, or those students interested insocial or creative enterprise. Regionally there are a few exceptions. 3 per cent of

provision in the South West region is targeting female students, but there is not muchevidence of this elsewhere. The South East region has some provision primarilytargeted at social enterprise and some targeting of creative enterprise reported in theNorth West, North East and London regions. Perhaps unsurprisingly the London andEast of England regions have well above the national average for the primarytargeting of international students.

Care must be taken in interpreting the above data. HEIs were asked to select theprimary target participant. Although few targeted the categories highlighted abovethis does not mean that those engaged were not female, ethnic or internationalstudents. Clearly they are, but these student groups were not specifically targeted.Similarly, for students with an interest in social, creative or scientific enterprise clearly students engage in such enterprise activity, but most HEIs do not target their

accredited provision in these areas.

All accredited provision: primary learning outcomesFor all reported accredited programmes/modules listed in the study, HEIs were askedto report the primary learning outcomes sought for each provision. The selection wasderived from the eight categories in the NCGE Entrepreneurial Outcomes benchmarktemplate and including three additional outcomes emphasising the desire to deliverindividuals capable of either: becoming freelance or self-employed; starting a new

Figure 7.Primary targeted

participants forprogrammes/modules (%)

Enterprisefor all?

193


12/28

business; or exploiting institutionally owned IP. The 13 outcomes are presented inTable II.

Figure 9 presents the national reported data for primary learning outcomes from allcurrent in-curricula enterprise provision. Across England, over one quarter (27 percent) of all programmes/modules primarily aim to deliver against Learning Outcome 1:to raise awareness, knowledge and understanding about enterprise/entrepreneurshipconcept and practice. Approximately one sixth (15 per cent) aim to primarily deliveragainst Learning Outcome 2: to develop individual enterprising/entrepreneurial skills,

Figure 8.Primary targetedparticipants forprogrammes/modules byregions (%)

JSBED14,2

194


13/28

behaviours and attitudes and one tenth primarily against Learning Outcome 13: toexploit institutionally owned IP.

Nationally, there were no reported data for the following three learning outcomes asprimary deliverables for current enterprise provision: Learning Outcome 9: to developkey business how-tos; Learning Outcome 10: to develop personal relationship andnetworking skills; Learning Outcome 11: to prepare for becoming a freelancer orself-employed. Similarly, there were barely any reported responses for LO12: to starta business.

Clearly, as primary learning outcomes are selected rather than all learning outcomesthen it is inappropriate to infer that there are some learning outcomes that are notbeing delivered through current enterprise provision in HE. It would be appropriate tosuggest that some learning outcomes however are not reported as a primary focus for

current provision.There is considerable variation across the regions as illustrated in Figure 10.

Proportionally, the East Midlands and London regions are significantly at a muchhigher level than the national average for LO1. Although low nationally, andnon-existent in some regions, in the North West, 27 per cent of programmes/modulesprimarily aim to deliver against Learning Outcome 6: to motivate and inspire studentstoward an enterprising or entrepreneurial career or life reporting a significant shift infocus from other regions.

No. Primary enterprise learning outcomes

LO1 To raise awareness, knowledge and understanding about enterprise/entrepreneurshipconcept and practice

LO2 To develop individual enterprising/entrepreneurial skills, behaviours and attitudesLO3 To develop personal self-confidence and capabilityLO4 To develop empathy with an entrepreneurial way of lifeLO5 To embed entrepreneurial values and beliefsLO6 To motivate and inspire students toward an enterprising or entrepreneurial career or lifeLO7 To understand venture creation processesLO8 To develop generic entrepreneurial competenciesLO9 To develop key business how-tosLO10 To develop personal relationship and networking skillsLO11 To prepare for becoming a freelancer or self-employedLO12 To start a new businessLO13 To exploit institutionally-owned IP

Table II.Primary enterpriselearning outcomes

Figure 9.Primary learning

outcomes for accreditedenterprise provision (%)

Enterprisefor all?

195


14/28

Overall the data illuminate a diverse landscape for primary learning outcomes fromreported current enterprise provision. There is an indicative focus nationally on LO1and to a lesser degree LO2 suggesting that current provision has been in the maindesigned to primarily deliver knowledge and understanding about enterprise andentrepreneurship with some support for the development of related skills andbehaviours. Clearly one region is emphasising the development of students inspiredand motivated toward enterprising and entrepreneurial careers and lives.

The spread of the reported data further suggest that there may be scope forreviewing current enterprise provision against a broader canvas of learning outcomes,particularly if the expectation from entrepreneurship education is to deliver increasinglevels of graduates capable of successfully entering the worlds of free-lance,self-employed or new business start-up employment options. Some institutions mayprefer for provision to primarily focus on developing graduates with enterprising orentrepreneurial capacities, self-confidence, behaviours, beliefs and values.

All accredited provision: student engagement profilesThe self-reported data presented here analyses the profiles of all students engaged incurrent enterprise and entrepreneurship provision across England by level of study(UG/PG) and by mode of delivery (Programme/Module).

Table III presents the main data and Figure 11 provides per cent distributions. 45per cent (19,774) of all in curricula enterprise students in England are engaged in UGmodules; 26 per cent (11,368) on UG full programmes; 16 per cent (7,219) on PGmodules; 11 per cent (4,986) on PG full programmes; and 2 per cent (707) on otherprovision. A total of 44,054 students are engaged in in-curricula activity representingapproximately 2.3 per cent of the just under 1.9 million students enrolled in the HEIs inthis study.

As with all sections of reported data there are significant regional variations. Higherthan average levels of engagement in UG provision, and hence lower PG provision, are

Figure 10.

Primary learningoutcomes of accreditedenterprise provision byregion (%)

JSBED14,2

196


15/28

evident in the North West, Yorkshire and Humberside, East Midlands and South Westregions, whereas conversely slightly higher than the national average levels ofengagement in PG provision are reported in the London region and much higherengagement levels in both the South East and the East of England regions (see

Figure 12).

All accredited provision: growth ratesData are rep orte d f or t he st art y ear f or all l ist ed c urre nt e nt erpriseprogrammes/modules thereby providing indicative perspectives on longevity andrates of growth of programmes. Data were requested only for current programmes.The findings are therefore not reporting an historical catalogue of provision started butnot currently running.

Figure 13 shows the number of new enterprise education programmes/modulesstarted each year from 1970, the earliest reported programme that is still part of currentprovision, through to 2006. The graph clearly illustrates periods of rising and decliningrates of growth in new provision. Few developments that are still offered are more than

10 years old with the majority less than 5 years old.There are clear points of significant increase in the rate of growth of new provision.Recently these are reported to have reached their peaks around 1996, 1999, and 2004.The decline reported for 2006 is partially due to the data collection point being partwaythrough an academic year. Additional provision will have been reported in the sectionon planned provision.

Although not reported here there are some regional variations with some reachingtheir highest peaks in 2003, 2004 or 2005.

This section has presented the data for all current accredited provision. The nextsection illustrates the findings for non-accredited current provision.

Figure 11.Profile of enterprise

students (%)

Programmes Number %

No. of students on full-time UG programmes 11,368 26No. of students on modules UG level 19,774 45Total UG students 31,142No. of students on full-time PG programmes 4,986 11No. of students on modules PG level 7,219 16Total PG students 12,205No. of students on Other provision 707 2Total students population involved in the region 44,054 100

Table III.Analysis of all students

involved in enterpriseeducation by level and

mode

Enterprisefor all?

197


16/28

All non-accredited provisionAll non-accredited provision: generalThese data report all current non - accredited enterprise provision across all thestudy HEIs in England. The data identify the range and number of eventsprovided; their primary source of funding; and, the levels of student engagementin the events.

All non-accredited provision: total eventsShown below is a list of the 24 non-accredited events identified for inclusion in themapping study:

Figure 12.Profile of enterprisestudents in the Englishregions (%)

JSBED14,2

198


17/28

(1) enterprise workshops;

(2) business plan competitions;

(3) YOMP (a business game);

(4) enterprise summer school;

(5) fellowships/internship;

(6) enterprise placements within industry;(7) NCGE Flying Start;

(8) Young Enterprise Graduate Programme (YEGP);

(9) Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE);

(10) CMI enterprises;

(11) New entrepreneurship scholarships (NEW);

(12) Shell Technology Enterprise Programme (STEP);

(13) career service events;

(14) Student Union events;

(15) alumni activities;(16) personal coaching;

(17) enterprise mentoring;

(18) access to finance, funds, investments;

(19) access to technical advice;

(20) access to specialist advice;

(21) access to external professional advice;

Figure 13.

Numbers of enterpriseprogs./modules started

each year (1970-2006)

Enterprisefor all?

199


18/28

(22) access to enterprise/entrepreneur networks;

(23) financial awareness training; and

(24) marketing and sales support and training.

A total of 5,324 current non-accredited enterprise events have been reported by HEIs inEngland at the time of the study.

Figure 14 shows that Event 1 (Enterprise Workshops) and Event 16 (PersonalCoaching) account for the majority of all non-accredited enterprise education events inHEIs in England. The third most common type of extra-curricula events were Event22 (Access to Networks) and Event 13 (Career Service Events). Events 8, 9, 10 and 17are reported at very low levels of provision, below 0.5 per cent, and hence are identifiedas 0 per cent provision due to round-up calculations.

All non-accredited provision: primary funding sourcesAll accredited provision is funded through mainstream state funding for education. Inthe case of non-accredited provision this is not funded through the same mechanism. Avariety of funding opportunities currently support student enterprise activity. Thesevary over time due to changes in government policies and initiatives, changes ininstitutional needs and demands on funds for this and other activities, and the desireand willingness of non-government and commercial organisations to supportenterprise in HE. Access to funding opportunities is likely to be highly competitiveinternally and externally and in some cases may not be universally available.

Figure 15 illustrates the range and use of 18 different funding sources by HEIs tosupport their enterprise activities. The chart depicts for each funding source the percent of all responses reporting that source. Abbreviations used in the chart areexplained below:

Figure 14.Provision ofnon-accredited enterpriseevents in England (%)

JSBED14,2

200


19/28

UCF University Core Funding.

HEIF Higher Education Innovation Funds.

RDA Regional Development Agency.

USF University Special Funds.

CETL Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.

GDC Government Development Contract.

SEC Science Enterprise Challenge.

HEA Higher Education Academy.

CSI Country-Specific Initiative.

Many of the funding sources listed and reported as used to support currentnon-accredited activity are public funds. Nationally, in England, over three quarters ofall activity is reported as being funded from public sources at European, national orregional levels. The dominant source of current funding, nearly one third of all funding,is HEIF (Higher Education Innovation Funds). HEIs in England provide almost onefifth of all funding through their own core funds. RDAs (Regional Development

Agencies) are reported as providing just over 8 per cent of all funding.The use of private/commercial sources of funding is reported as low. Just over 5 percent of funding comes through sponsorship with less than 1 per cent funded througheither paid fee income or private sector commercial contracts. Clearly endowments arenot a considered route for funding current non-accredited activity in HE.

Overall Figure 15 illustrates a limited range of funding in substantive use, a highdependency on public funds with few opportunities for non-public funds beingcurrently exploited. Viewed in relation to Figure 13 and the periods of increased rate ofnew growth in provision it is likely that funding initiatives such as HEIF (in its third

Figure 15.Non-accredited activity

funding sources: bytype (%)

Enterprisefor all?

201


20/28

round in 2006) and previously SEC (finishing in 2006) have had an impact on activities.However access to such funds and the nature of these funds changes and createsunpredictability in the development and planning for new activities.

All non-accredited provision: total student engagementThere are a total of 87,869 student engagements reported in England with currentnon-accredited activities at the time of this study. Figure 16 shows that the numbers ofstudent engagements involved with the non-accredited events is at the highest level forEvent 1 (Enterprise Workshops). Engagement in Event 13 (Career Service Events) isreported at the second highest level, and Event 14 (Student Union Events) is at thethird highest level.

The non-accredited activities reported with the lowest total number of studentengagements are Events 5, 8, 9, 10 and 17. Some events occurred at low levels ofengagement below 0.5 per cent and therefore, due to automated rounding up, are

shown as 0 per cent.In comparing the highest and lowest events of student engagements with thoseprovided by HEIs offers an indicative view of the match between supply and demand.In reviewing Figure 14 it is noted that Event 1 (Enterprise Workshops) and Event 13(Career Service Events) are both most commonly provided by HEIs and engaged in bystudents. Although HEIs report that Personal Coaching is most likely provided,students clearly engage with Student Union Events. At the lower end of provision andin terms of student engagement Events 8 (YEGP), 9 (SIFE), 10 (CMI Enterprisers) and17 (Enterprise Mentoring) are noted.

It is important not to misinterpret these findings. High and low responses are noindicator of quality. Indeed some initiatives specifically limit supply and studentengagement, either by design or by the resource capability required to scale up activity

any further. Additionally some activities require personal or small group approachesrather than with large student groups, for example, personal coaching.

Figure 16.Numbers of studentsengaged withnon-accredited events (%)

JSBED14,2

202


21/28

Figure 17 shows the number of students reported as being involved withnon-accredited activities in each region and in comparison with the national averagelevel. As with other data areas in this study there is clear regional variation.

ConclusionsThere has clearly been substantial change to the HE entrepreneurship landscape inEngland during the past decade. The findings from this mapping study haveilluminated current reported enterprise and entrepreneurship provision. This isvaluable evidence to support further development needs in the UK university sector.

There is a growing level of activity across most HEIs in England and healthy levelof interest and awareness of enterprise and entrepreneurship by staff and students.The data identify that the rate of growth in new provision has been recently highprobably driven by the access to a variety of funding opportunities.

The total of all reported course provision, 889, would appear to be a significantincrease since the Levie report although there are likely differences in the types of data

collected. Nonetheless, a 15 per cent increase from 104 to 120 courses was reportedbetween 1997/98 and 1998/99. This study revealed 157 new programmes/modulesstarted in 2004 alone.

The study reveals that 7 per cent of all students in HEIs in England are reportedengaging in enterprise activity. This can range from attending an enterprise workshopthrough to a full degree programme at UG or PG levels, with the majority, two-thirds,engaging in extra-curricula forms of enterprise provision, and that two thirds of the 7per cent of enterprise students will be UGs. Clearly the nature of the experience willbe markedly different for different types of engagement.

The data also reveal that there is a dominance in provision through BusinessSchools and for targeting students from a single faculty, most likely therefore to be the

Figure 17.Students involvement of

non-accredited enterpriseevents: by region

Enterprisefor all?

203


22/28

Business and Management Faculties or Schools. This was a finding of the Levie study(LBS, 1999) that noted only 25 per cent of all students taking entrepreneurship courseswere non-business students . . . even though non-business students comprise almost 90per cent of the student population.

This finding highlights the challenge of diversity in the conceptions of enterpriseand entrepreneurship education. Atherton (2004) explores this point and distinguishestwo specific meanings that are of relevance: firstly, becoming an entrepreneur; andsecondly being entrepreneurial. It is not evident from the data that there is a generalstrong focus on either conception across the HE sector.

But these data raise further questions. In a climate of rhetoric that supports anenterprise for all vision and where this is already being carried out throughcompulsory education, is a 7 per cent level of student engagement a satisfactory level,or should there be a higher goal? If so is there an optimal level of engagement and whatwould this be? What should be the benchmark for individual HEIs?

Also the data reveal significant differences in the type of provision that studentsengage in. Is double the engagement in extra-curricula rather than in-curricula activity

appropriate? Should there be a better balance? Would the learning experience ofin-curricula opportunities provide deeper learning and be more likely to lead to thedevelopment of changed capacities within students? Similar observations apply to thebalance between engagement by undergraduate or postgraduate students.

It is further clear that the data reveal differences across the regions of England inthe nature, approach, aspirations, outcomes, scope and scale of enterprise andentrepreneurship provision. Within each region these differences will be furtheramplified by the make up of regional HE structures and variations between individualinstitutions as these too vary immensely as highlighted elsewhere (Hannon, 2007).

Overall, a number of future challenges are presented. The study reports substantialgrowth in activity and practice across England. It will be important to understand thenature and scale of the impact that this is having on individual students and graduates,

on staff and faculty, on institutions, on regions and more broadly on the economy andsociety as a whole. Although efforts in this direction have been made it remains unclearat the national level the overall impact of investments in enterprise andentrepreneurship education on the development of an entrepreneurial economy anda general societal culture of enterprise and in particular on the development ofentrepreneurial behaviours and attitudes. Some research does provide some evidenceof a positive relationship, particularly between engagement in enterprise education andentrepreneurial propensity (GEM, 2006; Rasheed, 2004; Charney and Libecap, 2002).

Additionally, the growth in activity, and the seemingly continued expected growthin demand requires an associated growth in the scale and capability of thecommunity of educators who are leading current and future growth in the field, not

just in scale and scope, but also conceptually. This challenge requires development incurricula and pedagogic innovations and educator capability as well as growth ininstitutional resource support from a broad base of sources not being limited topublic funds.

This then highlights a critical challenge concerning the capacity for sustaining thegrowth achieved to date and future developments in entrepreneurship education acrossthe HE sector, to be able to build on the scope of activity identified through this study,learn from the experience, know what works best and scale up good and best practiceacross faculties, institutions and regions.

JSBED14,2

204


23/28

The overarching concern that this study helps to illuminate, not all reported withinthe limits of this paper, is the systemic fragility of enterprise and entrepreneurshipprovision in HEIs in England arising from, inter alia:

. the narrow choices and uncertainty of future funding sources;

. the potential decline in the rate of growth of new provision possibly due to loss offunding in some areas;

. a general lack of high policy institutional support and structural drivers;

. a lack of investment in the development of effective people and processes;

. competing policy priorities;

. a lack of champions in government, in regions, in institutions, in professions;

. the slow development of future education leaders;

. the slow growth of the community of practice; and

. the need for increased development, sharing and learning of good practiceinternationally.

A consortium[10] of national organisations and government recently commissioned astudy of good practice across the UK in delivering entrepreneurship outcomes throughentrepreneurship education practices. The final report recommendations (Botham andMason, 2006) emphasise:

. . . [HEI enterprise activity] currently remains small scale and restricted to relatively fewstudents and subjects. Scaling up the level of activity is far from easy and many of theexisting activities in the case study HEIs face serious ongoing challenges to their futureexistence . . . For most of the activities examined in this study, future funding is a criticalchallenge . . . Without more substantial and reliable funding, much existing activity maystruggle to survive and its further development and diffusion will be seriously constrained. Itwill also constrain the scaling up of existing activity.

The report further highlights that:

. . . staff resources and skills for teaching entrepreneurship are in short supply. In many cases,teaching is dependent on one or two highly committed individuals. Should these individualsleave, it is often far from clear that any enterprise education would continue. Currently veryfew academic staff have the skills or experience necessary to teach or facilitate enterprisecourses. Even some staff currently teaching entrepreneurship have had little exposure toteaching and learning methods used in other institutions . . . Funding and staff skills are twoof the main barriers to wider dissemination.

Finally the study concludes that:

. . . there is nosingle modelof good practice. Much experimentation isunderway.Thisis essential

if enterprise education outwith Business Studies is to develop effectively. Experimentationneeds to be encouraged . . . and, . . . as a priority, concepts of good practice and an appropriateoutcome framework need to be developed for non-specialist enterprise education and, inparticular, for where enterprise is incorporated into mainstream subject curricula.

Implications and next stepsThere are implications emerging from and strengthened by the evidence-base that thisstudy now provides. It was only in February 2005 that the UK Chancellor of the

Enterprisefor all?

205


24/28

Exchequer, Gordon Brown, observed that today only one per cent of college oruniversity students are engaged in enterprise (cited in BVCA, 2005). Clearly theevidence base now suggests that we have come a long way. Brown also sought toensure that by 2006 all schools will offer enterprise education and that every college

and every university should be twinned with a business champion. (cited in BVCA,2005). With the implementation of the Davies Review (2002) the former should beachieved but in the post-16 sector there is still further progress to be made.

Government has a significant role in the UK in shaping the future educationenvironment for enterprise and entrepreneurship. There still needs to be a coherentcross-departmental policy to ensure effective progression across all levels of theeducation system. The Norwegian approach discussed earlier in this paper shows away forwards (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006).

There is a strong need to develop sustainable long-term institutional models andstrategies for enterprise and entrepreneurship provision in universities that enablecurrent efforts and successes to be built upon and scaled up. Such approaches shouldfeed off the good and best practice that has been developed across the UK and

internationally where in some countries HEIs have been tackling the same agendas fortwo or more decades. There is also a need for mainstreaming more of the provisionwithin core funded education delivery as well as for developing innovativeopportunities for resourcing extra-curricula activity through the closer integration ofentrepreneurs, alumni and external agencies.

But why should any institution or educator put the effort into doing this? Thetop-level policy arguments have not yet been won over, particularly within anincreasingly competitive education environment where low recruitment one year canstop the momentum of several years efforts overnight. More exemplars and role modelsfrom around the globe are needed as demonstrators. In the US, the Ewing MarionKauffman Foundation now supports several US HEIs to develop campus-wide modelsand strategies for entrepreneurship education. This could be a useful approach for

some UK institutions.Some observers note that the area most in need of reform is that of teacher training.The EU believes that teachers do not receive sufficient training on how to bring theconcept of entrepreneurship into the classroom. They believe that there is insufficientexchange and dissemination of good practice. It believes that by disseminating goodpractice to teachers, enterprise can be encouraged and many of the pit falls uncoveredby early practitioners can be avoided. In particular, they think that it is necessary toexplain why promoting an entrepreneurial attitude can be important (BVCA, 2005).The EUs Expert Group on Entrepreneurship Education strongly advocates asignificant increase in teacher training in addition to better dissemination and sharingof international best practice and experiences. The Norwegian Governments nationalstrategic plan strongly emphasises the need for teaching training in entrepreneurship

education (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006).And why should other then the few passionate dedicated educators get involved?Where are the professional and personal incentives and rewards for driving forwardthis agenda in a university department or faculty or across an institution as a leadinginternal champion? The UK RAE has significantly affected staff and institutionalbehaviour whether for the better or not, but there are extremely limited opportunitiesfor encouraging engagement in enterprise and entrepreneurship within HE.

It is also important that there is a greater understanding of how entrepreneurshipeducation practice delivers the types of entrepreneurial outcomesthat would be desirable

JSBED14,2

206


25/28

from such an experience. The need for agreeing and implementing a sharedunderstanding of expected and desired outcomes is recognised across Europe (forexample see Hytti, 2004). A guiding framework of outcomes needs to be clarified,articulated and widely applied. NCGE is working with UK partners to develop such a

framework.Finally, if an enterprise for all vision is appropriate and desirable then not only do

the challenges of educator capability and institutional capacity need to be addressedbut the overarching models and approaches will need to be more inclusive. The studyfindings are unequivocal in demonstrating the significant role of Business School incurrent provision. However, this creates potential barriers to engagement across thosecommunities of educators and learners that base their goals and aspirations on adifferent set of beliefs and values to those that may be promoted by a business school.To engage the Art, Design and Media Faculties, the creative disciplines, other areasof humanities and social sciences may require adopting, developing, testingapproaches and models based upon different language and terminology, differentaspirations and goals, different value and belief systems.

In 2004, an ISBE Consortium led by the author and reporting to NCGE on a globalreview of the literature on graduate entrepreneurship recommended that:

. further research should be commissioned to define the scope and nature of goodpractice in entrepreneurship education;

. consideration be given to the development of a benchmarking framework;

. there should be national recognition and awards for excellence and best practice;

. the professional development needs of entrepreneurship educators should beaddressed; and

. there need to be greater support for the provision of effective learning andpersonal development opportunities.

To close this paper, a number of opportunities for tackling the challenges raised aboveare noted. NCGE is already working with partners in a number of key areas to:

. implement the action plan from the 2006 International EntrepreneurshipEducators Conference at York[11];

. work with the new RDA/NCGE Task Group to embed the mapping survey on anannual basis across all parts of the UK to inform future development;

. further capture and disseminate good practice across diverse contexts;

. implement a new development programme for educators with UKSEC, theHigher Education Academy and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation;

. agree an overarching National Entrepreneurship Outcomes Framework across

the education system to aid progression and guide curricula innovations;. build further international linkages and partnerships for sharing experiences;. seek further integration of collective efforts to avoid re-invention of wheels; and. continually secure the engagement and buy-in of key stakeholders.

And regards the mapping survey instrument? There is room for improvement here.Some areas were found by institutions to be more difficult to respond to than others,particularly teaching resources and student profile data. NCGE purposefully did not

Enterprisefor all?

207


26/28

collect any data regards applied pedagogies to maintain a level of simplicity in datacollection. Again this is a useful development area to extend. Other areas are emerging.Clearly striking a balance between ensuring data collection is not an imposition oradditional workload on institutions and providing valuable and valued results for

institutions and regions and national agencies will always be a fine line to tread.Overcoming any fragilities in support and development and delivering enterpriseeducation opportunities for all demands an ongoing understanding of the state of playacross the sector. The online mapping study provides the underpinning evidence base.

Notes

1. www.dti.gov.uk/science/

2. www.dti.gov.uk/science/knowledge-transfer/index.html

3. www.dti.gov.uk/science/knowledge-transfer/heif/page12054.html

4. www.dti.gov.uk/science/knowledge-transfer/schemes/Science_Enterprise_Challenge/

page12138.html5. www.heacademy.ac.uk/SubjectNetwork.htm

6. www.hefce.ac.uk/Learning/tinits/cetl/

7. The consortium consisted NCGE, Council for Industry and Higher Education, DTI SmallBusiness Service, Enterprise Insight

8. OECD (2001), Putting the Young in Business; Policy Challenges for Youth Entrepreneurship,Paris p. 67

9. The research team working with NCGE was led by Dr. Jonathan Scott, Aston Universitywith Srikanth Sursani and Cindy Millman, University of Central England in Birmingham,UK. Acknowledgement is given to their contribution to data collection and collation.

10. The consortium consisted the DTIs Small Business Service, the Council for Industry and

Higher Education, the Higher Education Academy, Enterprise Insight and was led by theNational Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship.

11. See www.ncge.org.uk/communities/Education/conf_action.php

References

Atherton, A. (2004), Unbundling enterprise and entrepreneurship, Innovation andEntrepreneurship, May, pp. 121-7.

Botham, R. and Mason, C. (2006), Good practice in enterprise development in UK highereducation, a report for The National Council of Graduate Entrepreneurship, The Councilfor Industry and Higher Education, the Small Business Service, Enterprise Insight and theHigher Education Academy, NCGE, Birmingham.

BVCA (2005), Investing in enterprise, a report by IrwinGrayson Associates, British VentureCapital Association, London.

Charney, A. and Libecap, G. (2002), Impact of Entrepreneurship, Kauffman Center forEntrepreneurial Leadership, Kansas City, MO.

Dainow, R. (1986), Training and education of entrepreneurs: the current state of the literature,Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 10-23.

Davies, H. (2002), A review of enterprise and the economy in education, HM Treasury, London,February.

JSBED14,2

208


27/28

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) (2006), Developing Entrepreneurship for theCreative Industries: The Role of Higher and Further Education, Department for Culture,Media and Sport, Creative Industries Division, London.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003), The Future of Higher Education, DfES,

Cm5735, January.Department of Trade and Industry (1998), Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge

Driven Economy, Command Paper 4176, The Stationery Office, London.

Department for Trade and Industry (2000), White Paper: Excellence and opportunity a scienceand innovation policy for the 21st Century, Cm 4814, The Stationery Office, London.

European Union (EU) (2000),European Charter for Small Enterprises, Feira European Council, June.

European Union (EU) (2002), Final report of the expert group, Best Procedure project onEducation and Training for Entrepreneurship, November.

European Union (EU) (2004a), Action plan: the European agenda for entrepreneurship, EC,COM (2004) 70 final, February.

European Union (EU) (2004b), Education for entrepreneurship, final report of the expert group,November.

Gibb, A.A. and Hannon, P.D. (2007), Towards the entrepreneurial university, InternationalJournal of Entrepreneurship Education, Senate Hall Academic Publishing, Pershore(forthcoming).

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2006), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2005 Report,Babson College, Babson Park, MA and London Business School, London.

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), Some research perspectives on entrepreneurshipeducation, enterprise education, and education for small business management: a ten-yearliterature review, International Small Business Journal, April/June, pp. 56-77.

Hannon, P.D. (2005), Graduate entrepreneurship in the UK: defining a research and educationpolicy framework, paper presented at the 28th ISBE National Conference IlluminatingEntrepreneurship, Blackpool, November.

Hannon, P.D. (2007), The state of education and support for enterprise and entrepreneurship:a mapping study of Englands HEIs, International Journal of Entrepreneurship

Education, Senate Hall Academic Publishing, Pershore (forthcoming).

Hannon, P.D., Scott, J., Sursani, S.R. and Millman, C. (2006), Mapping provision of enterpriseeducation and support for entrepreneurship in Englands HEIs, Proceedings of the 29th

ISBE National Conference, Cardiff, November.

Hytti, U. (2004), State of art of enterprise education in Europe, results from the Entredu project,Small Business Institute, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Turku.

Hytti, U. and OGorman, C. (2004), What is enterprise education? An analysis of the objectivesand methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries,

Education Training, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 11-23.

ISBE (2004), Making the journey from student to entrepreneur: a review of the existing researchinto graduate entrepreneurship, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship,Research Paper number 001, Birmingham.

Lambert, R. (2003), Lambert Review of Business University Collaboration, HM Treasury, London.

London Business School (1999), Entrepreneurship education in higher education in England:a survey, London Business School and the Department for Education and Skills, London.

Ministry of Education and Research (2006), See the opportunities and make them work! Strategyfor entrepreneurship in education and training, joint Strategic Plan by the NorwegianMinistries of Education and Research, Trade and Industry, and Local Government andRegional Development, Ministry of Education and Research, Oslo.

Enterprisefor all?

209


28/28

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE) (1997), Higher education in thelearning society: report of the National Committee, HMSO, London.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001), Putting the Young inBusiness: Policy Challenges for Youth Entrepreneurship, OECD, Paris, p. 67.

Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2005), Entrepreneurship education a systematic review of theevidence, Proceedings of the 28th ISBE National Conference, Blackpool, November.

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

Price, A., Finlayson, R., Scott, J., Wilkinson, D., Myers, K., Richardson, C., Marston, A. andMiller, C. (2004), Final project report: mapping graduate enterprise, NCGE ResearchPaper number 002, July.

Rasheed, H.S. (2004), The effects of entrepreneurship training and venture creation on youthentrepreneurial attitudes and academic performance, University of South Florida, Tampa,FL.

Solomon, G.T. (1986), National Survey of Entrepreneurial Education,Vol. 1-6, US Small Business

Administration, National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, CA.

Solomon, G.T. (1988), Small business management and entrepreneurial education in America:a national survey overview, Journal of Private Enterprise, November.

Solomon, G.T. and Fernald, L.W. Jr (1991), Trends in small business management andentrepreneurship education in the United States, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 25-39.

Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S. and Tarabishy, A. (2002), The state of entrepreneurship education inthe united states: a nationwide survey and analysis, International Journal of

Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, Senate Hall Academic Publishing, Pershore,pp. 65-86.

Solomon, G.T., Weaver, K.M. and Fernald, L.W. Jr (1994), Pedagogical methods of teachingentrepreneurship: an historical perspective, Gaming and Simulation, Vol. 25 No. 3.

Vesper, K.H. (1986), New developments in entrepreneurship education, in Sexton, D.L. andSmilor, R.W. (Eds), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA,pp. 379-87.

Vesper, K.H. (1987), Entrepreneurship academics: how can we tell when the field is gettingsomewhere?, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3, pp. 1-10.

Vesper, K.H. and Gartner, W.B. (1997), Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, pp. 403-21.

Vesper, K.H. and McMullan, W.E. (1988), Entrepreneurship: today courses, tomorrow degrees?,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 7-13.

Wilson, K. (2004), Entrepreneurship education at European universities and business schools results of a joint pilot survey, European Foundation for Entrepreneurship Research(EFER), September.

Corresponding authorPaul Hannon can be contacted at: [email protected]

JSBED14,2

210

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

Enterprise for All