This article was downloaded by: [University of Central Florida]On: 13 October 2014, At: 08:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of LifelongEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tled20

Enterprising career education: thepower of self-managementAnki Bengtssona

a Stockholm University, SwedenPublished online: 13 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Anki Bengtsson (2014) Enterprising career education: the powerof self-management, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33:3, 362-375, DOI:10.1080/02601370.2014.896085

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.896085

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

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

Enterprising career education: the power ofself-management

ANKI BENGTSSONStockholm University, Sweden

This article provides an account of how people’s career management is given prominencein contemporary European policy documents pertaining to career education for entrepre-neurship in higher education and in vocational education and training. This study con-cerns the ways in which policy discourses of career management and governmentalpractices invoke individuals to understand themselves as entrepreneurial. Proceedingfrom post-Foucauldian theorizing of the concept of governmentality, the analysis drawsattention to technologies and procedures designed to foster career self-management.Focus is also directed to the practices of self-knowledge, self-actualization and self-controlas part of the formation of the subjectivity. It is argued that the governance ofself-management operates in two interrelated ways: as a practice of inducing individualsto shape an entrepreneurial relation towards their needs and desires, and as a power toenterprise career education. In relation to this, the analysis elucidates how the discourseof competence acts upon individuals to capitalize themselves and engage in a permanentself-assessment of their needs.

Keywords: career education; entrepreneurship; governmentality; self-management;competence; subjectivity; Europe

Introduction

According to Patton (2005, p. 22) ‘We are in an era of ‘do-it-yourself careermanagement’ where individuals are being challenged to play a greater role inconstructing their own career development’. Today, European policy of careereducation and teaching seeks to motivate individuals to consider entrepreneur-ship and self-employment as a career option and to adapt to what is called anentrepreneurial spirit (European Commission [EC], 2006, 2013). This articleexamines policy constructions of career self-management and, in relation to this,career education in European policy for entrepreneurship in higher education(henceforth HE) and initial vocational and educational training (henceforthIVET). My stance is analytic and does not constitute an objection to entrepre-neurship being an object of European policy relating to education, training andcareer education. The aim of this study is to examine the ways in which policydiscourses of career management and governmental practices invoke individualsto understand themselves as entrepreneurial. It examines the policy construc-tions of career self-management in the light of the importance that Europeanpolicy ascribes to entrepreneurship education. The means by which policyproduces the problem is problematized by scrutinizing the forms of governing,

Anki Bengtsson, PhD Student, Department of Education, Stockholm University, SE 106 91 Stockholm,Sweden. Email: anki.bengtsson@edu.su.se

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

INT. J. OF LIFELONG EDUCATION, 2014

VOL. 33, NO. 3, 362–375, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.896085

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

reason and practices and what kind of subjectivity that emerges within practicesand discourses. Drawing on Foucault’s (1984) notion of problematization andBacchi’s (2009) method of ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’, the analysisrests upon a set of questions:1 What presuppositions and assumptions underliepolicy’s constructions of career self-management and career education? Whatkind of governing practices does it enable? What subjectivity is produced?

The study also take advantage of governmentality studies that pay specific atten-tion to investigating governing practices, technologies of self-regulation and sub-jectivity in contemporary policy of education and training (Rose, 1998; Simons,2002; Simons & Masschelein, 2008). According to Rose (1998, p. 26), technology,in the context of governing the human being, refers to ‘any assembly structured bya practical rationality governed by a more or less conscious goal’. The study putsemphasis on the discourse of competence; how it is constructed as a technology ofpower and how it operates in the construction of the individual as the producerand the organizer of his or hers career. The analysis explores the underlying ratio-nality of the policy assumption of individuals’ freedom to manage their career asbeing that it makes them governable through their social practices. Other studieshave problematized the technique of dialogue in career guidance activity as a formof confession which constitutes the self (Besley, 2005; Fejes, 2008). I focus on theparticular forms of self-awareness and self-actualization which constitutes the selfin present discourses of ‘competence-based career’ and discourses of entrepre-neurship. It is argued that governing of self-management operates both as a prac-tice to capitalize oneself to shape an entrepreneurial relation towards their needsand desires and as a power to enterprise career education.

This study uses the term ‘career education’ in a broad sense, covering variouskinds of career guidance activity in education and training. Entrepreneurship is aconcept that does not lend itself to a single definition, but how the concept isadopted in a specific context requires clarification. The notion of ‘enterprise cul-ture’ emerged in the 1980s within the discourse of the post-industrial economy.Peters (2001) suggests that enterprise culture is a neoliberal metanarrative for eco-nomic growth in which public institutions of HE are given a central place for theintervention of entrepreneurship. The policy discourse of entrepreneurship circu-lates a narrow repertoire of entrepreneurship, which is coupled with economic activ-ity. The European policy documents analysed tend to speak of self-employment andentrepreneurship as a career option related to the choice of being an employee.However, they also direct all students to learn entrepreneurial skills and an entre-preneurial mindset. In this sense, the notion of entrepreneurship connotes the indi-vidual’s practices in relations where the economic and the social are intertwined.

The outline of the paper starts with a presentation of the analytic framework.Thereafter, there is a backdrop of a brief description of the research fields ofcareer education and entrepreneurship. It also glances at the European policyintervention of entrepreneurship education. The empirical part of the papermaps the policy representations of career self-management and career educationfor entrepreneurship in HE and IVET. The analysis draws attention to the dis-course of competence and how it operates to enforce self-directed practices ofcareer management, such as performance and self-assessment. Further, it accen-tuates that the discourse of ‘competence-centred’ career management is part ofthe construction of use-value of career education. This is followed by a discus-sion of governance of career self-management in relation to entrepreneurship,

363ENTERPRISING CAREER EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

what kind of subjectivity it produces and in which ways it support newconfigurations of career education.

Theoretical perspective

My analytic approach is based upon an employment of ‘problematisation’, whichdiffers from Freiere’s ideological understanding of problematization as apedagogical practice that is designed to unveil ‘truths’ (Bacchi, 2012).Problematization is a form of genealogical scepticism which looks at effectsrather than causes. It is an analytic method of posing questions and of reflectingon how certain systems of thought and practices come to be conceived in a par-ticular way at a certain historical moment (Foucault, 1984). In this sense, theanalytic approach connects to Foucault’s notion of power and knowledge, thatis, that power and knowledge are inseparable and circulate through discourses(Foucault, 1980). As mentioned above, I combine the analytic approach ofproblematization with a governmentality perspective which seeks to clarify therelation between current forms of liberal government and conduct of the ‘freesubject’. It concerns the wide range of techniques and practices of governmentby which rule is accomplished, the rationalities of government and practices ofself-formation (Dean, 1999; Foucault, 1991). Foucault (1988a) suggests that tech-nologies of government (mobilization of control) and technologies of the self(self-management) are intertwined. Drawing on the suggestions of Alvesson andSandberg (2011, p. 256), this study employs several analytic steps: identifying adomain of literature (here policy documents and literature), identifying the dis-courses and political rationality of governing that frame the policy process,examining the practices through which subjectivity is produced, and evaluatingarticulations of the assumptions of the problem and attempting to tease outtheir conditions of emergence (Bacchi, 2009).

With Ball (1993), who, among others, (e.g. Bacchi, 2009) speaks of policy asdiscourse, I regard policy as a practice that ‘makes’ social problems in a specificway in a particular context. Policy is therefore more than text as policy discourseevolves prior to the texts and policy is enacted and transformed in the conse-quences of textual production. In other words, a variety of discursive elements aretranslated across discourses in different directions and temporal discursive forma-tions are shaped. Given this, the number of policy texts analysed is less important;instead they are seen as both artefacts and governing practices in the framing ofcareer education for entrepreneurship in IVET and HE. The empirical data areselected on the basis of interdiscursivity and content (topic and themes) (Bacchi,2009). The empirical data are restricted to official European policy documents oncareer education and teaching for entrepreneurship in HE and IVET, producedby request of the EC in the first decades of the twenty-first century. This entailsthe limitation that official discourses are examined and other discourses are notvisible within the analysis. The study omits policy documents on the same issue innational and regional settings in Europe. It does not mean that policy productionat different levels is separate from each other in the policy strategy to reformcareer education. On the contrary, they are discursively interconnected. There is,hitherto, only one European policy document that specifically directs careereducation for entrepreneurship in education. It is the report carried out by the

364 ANKI BENGTSSON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP):Guidance supporting Europe’s aspiring entrepreneurs: Policy and practice to harness futurepotential (CEDEFOP, 2011). The two other policy documents analysed were pro-duced at the request of the EC and concern teaching for entrepreneurship. Theyare: Best Procedure Project: Entrepreneurship in Vocational Education and Training. FinalReport (EC, 2009) and Entrepreneurship Education: Enabling Teachers as a CriticalSuccess Factor. A report on Teacher Education and Training to prepare teachers for thechallenge of entrepreneurship education (EC, 2011).

Career education and entrepreneurship

Career education activity takes place in learning environments, which could beformal, non-formal and informal environments connected to education, train-ing, workplaces and public employment services. Hence, career education is notreliant on the classroom, which implies that the ‘educator’ for careers can bestaffed from a variety of organizations. Career education includes activities suchas real-life case studies, workshops in planning and communication and network-ing with the help of mentors and student ambassadors (Law, 1996). In the1970s, lifelong education politics nurtured career education programmes in wes-tern education. They were shaped from the ‘trait factor’ theory, which is basedon three elements of career choice: self-knowledge, knowledge of the world ofwork and ‘true reasoning of these two groups of facts [sic]’ (Parsons, 1909/1989,p. 5). The cornerstones of career education programmes were decision learningand transition learning. In the literature of career development, career is educa-tion thought of as a practice to encourage the students to engage in reviewingand action planning of their learning experiences (Watts, 2000). Critique ofrecent career education programmes points to a reduction of this aim toacquisition of employability skills and self-management competences and adepoliticization of social injustice (Irving, 2010).

In the 1990s, there was a shift in understanding the organization as a systemof network, which affected how we think of a ‘career’. In connection with the‘career turn’, two interrelated terms emerged: the ‘boundaryless’ career (Arthur& Rousseau, 1996) and the ‘protean career’ (Hall, 1996).2 The former claimsthat the person, not the organization, is responsible for managing the careerand the organization or the employer is accountable to provide resources andopportunities for the career (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). The rationale of theboundaryless career is an image of the independent individual, who movesacross the boundaries of work organizations. In contrast to this promotion ofexternal mobility, the ‘protean career’ is self-directed.3 Accordingly, the proteancareer nurtures the individual to always open to new possibilities and to becomeadaptive to changes through learning and performance. Further, the employ-ment arrangement is bounded by a psychological contract, which Hall and Moss(1998) describes as a contract with the self. Aligned with the ‘career turn’, theconstructivist approach to career education shifts the focus from the individual’sability to match a vocation to the active construction of their career by means oflearning and formative assessment of learning experiences (Patton, 2005).Outcome of choice, personal goals and self-efficacy are core variables in the per-formance model of the career development theory called social cognitive career

365ENTERPRISING CAREER EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2002). The concept of self-efficacy, that is, theindividual’s self-perception of their abilities and skills, is used to explainself-stated career options and behaviours related to the career. The literature ofentrepreneurship puts self-efficacy in relation to risk-taking and assessment ofcapacity (Kickul, 2006). A different strand in the literature of entrepreneurshipeducation is exploring the values of entrepreneurship and its role in the society.In his studies of entrepreneurial universities, Gibb (2007) underlines the rela-tionship between mainstreaming entrepreneurship education and reformationof the HE sector and establishing an enterprise culture. His argument is thatthe success of adopting an entrepreneurial culture in educational organizationsrelies on engaging the entire staff and stakeholders in entrepreneurial initiativesfor learning. Dahlstedt and Hertzberg (2012) take another point of view andargue that the technology of entrepreneurial pedagogy connects students andtheir subjectivity to the rationality of the market.

The European policy intervention for entrepreneurship education

In the late 1990s, the shortage of entrepreneurs in comparison to the USA isspoken of as a cultural problem of Europe: ‘At present, most people do notthink of, and are not prepared for an enterprising life’ (EC, 1999, p. 7). In theEntrepreneur 2020 Action plan, this is stated in a similar way: ‘low enthusiasmfor an entrepreneurial career’ (EC, 2013, p. 4). Since 2000 and the LisbonStrategy (EC, 2000), policy-makers have promoted entrepreneurship as the vehi-cle for economic recovery and job creation. The Green Paper Entrepreneurshipin Europe stipulates that: ‘Entrepreneurship is first and foremost a mindset. Itcovers an individual’s motivation and capacity, independently or within an orga-nization, to identify an opportunity and to pursue it in order to produce newvalue or economic success’ (EC, 2003a, p. 5). In 2003, a Commission communi-cation entitled The role of the universities in the Europe of Knowledge (EC, 2003b)claimed that the global competitiveness demands that knowledge flows from uni-versities into business and society. The report from the Centre for EducationalResearch and Innovation, Towards an ‘enterprising’ culture: a challenge for educationand training (Ball, 1989), can be considered as the breakthrough of an interna-tional policy of entrepreneurship and enterprise in education. In 2006, ‘a senseof entrepreneurship’ was embedded in the set of eight key competences for life-long learning (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union,2006) which establishes entrepreneurship as a transversal competence, that is, aset of generic skills available to all learners. The Oslo Agenda for Entrepreneur-ship Education in Europe (EC, 2006) marked a step up in the policy interven-tion of a European model of entrepreneurship education for all forms ofeducation at all levels. In 2013, the EC in collaboration with the OECDlaunched HEInnovate, which is an online self-assessment tool for universities tomeasure their entrepreneurial impact.4

The technology of competence: governing the subject

By making entrepreneurship a career option to all students, whichentrepreneurship education in the curriculum enables, everyone is involved in

366 ANKI BENGTSSON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

the objective to ‘create a more favourable societal climate for entrepreneurship’,by changing their mindsets and improving their skills (EC, 2006, p. 3). Asmentioned above, a ‘sense of entrepreneurship’ is one of the eight transversalcompetences for lifelong learning. It is stated that:

Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship refers to an individual’s abil-ity to turn ideas into action. It includes creativity, innovation and risk-taking, as well as the ability to plan and manage projects in order toachieve objectives. This supports individuals, not only in their every-day lives at home and in society, but also in the workplace in beingaware of the context of their work and being able to seize opportuni-ties, and is a foundation for more specific skills and knowledgeneeded by those establishing or contributing to social or commercialactivity. This should include awareness of ethical values and promotegood governance. (European Parliament and the Council, 2006,p. 17)

The policy discourse of entrepreneurship invites us to reflect and act on ourway of living. In this sense, we are all governed to remould the way we think andact in relation to entrepreneurship, which is discursively arranged as an omni-present social practice in everyone’s life. The spatial aspect is essential in govern-ing the individual to adopt a sense of entrepreneurship. In accordance with thenew knowledge of the career, the personal life and the social environment andworkplaces are given priority over institutional education in terms of learningenvironments. From an instrumental, managerial and entrepreneurial point ofview, the competency-based career is about performance at work, at school andin the social life (Simons & Masschelein, 2008).

The policy urges us to be ‘prepared for an enterprising life’ by improvingpersonal qualities of ability, be it problem-solving, communication, cooperation,creativity, risk-management or the ability to cope with uncertainty (EC, 1999,p. 7). These qualities of abilities for learning are not new in career education(Law, 1996). They have to be invented as entrepreneurship competencesthrough truth claims by entrepreneurship. The policy practice to place entrepre-neurship as one of the key competences for lifelong learning, and the technicalframework that supports these, are means to legitimize the knowledge of entre-preneurial competences. Another set of competences—career management skills(henceforth CMS)—are assembled from the normative framework of lifelonglearning. CMS can be regarded as competences as they involve attitudes and val-ues, and, in addition, a meta-competence as they are about ‘learning to learn’(Sultana, 2012).

Career management skills play a decisive role in empowering peopleto become involved in shaping their learning, training and integra-tion pathways and their careers. Such skills, which should be main-tained throughout life, are based on key competences, in particular‘learning to learn’, social and civic competences—including intercul-tural competences—and a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship.(Council of the European Union, 2008, p. 5)

367ENTERPRISING CAREER EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

The individual is called upon to achieve CMS to make themselves subjects ofthe self-responsibility of employability. Encouraging the individual to achieveCMS, which is thought of as a ceaseless procedure, thereby contributes to theorganization of ‘social reality’ and social security. CMS are expected to‘enhance self-awareness and awareness of the changing world of work; self-observation […] to ‘improve the ability to take responsibility for their owncareer and personal development; strengthen the ability to manage the rela-tionship between work, business and learning throughout all stages of life’(CEDEFOP, 2011, p. 125). It is suggested that CMS can support aspiring entre-preneurs to self-assess their need of learning and career guidance (Ibid.). Thepolicy language speaks of ‘needs’ arising from personal interpretation and con-nects these to self-appraisal. It reflects the arrangement of the protean career,which positions the individual as an expert on the self who can access supportfrom career guidance practitioners who are experts on the self (Hall, 1996).Informal guidance, such as advice and information from family, friends andcolleagues are depicted as not meeting the ends of expertise. For example,the experience of migrant entrepreneurs is down-played as non-expert know-how of entrepreneurship, which is spoken of as a risk: […] there is a dangerthat informal sources of advice (family and friends) can be misinformed, ham-pering individuals’ effort to start their own business (CEDEFOP, 2011, p. 146).Two things are at stake here: migrant entrepreneurship is not framed by ‘per-sonalised’ learning, but rather from the representation of ‘difference’ and‘being different’ (Bacchi, 2009), and a doubt is articulated about whether thiskind of informal guidance can be consistent with the figure of the active andself-regulating entrepreneurial individual. Acquiring what is called entrepre-neurial competences entails that we should understand how competencesenable us to meet needs, to make career choices and to motivate ourselves toassess self-improvement. What kind of expectations then does the policy puton career education for entrepreneurship?

The policy narrative of entrepreneurship: reconfiguration of careereducation

Since the 1970s, policy knowledge of career education has been establishedthrough the learning discourse. In 1970, the United Nations EducationalScientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) speaks of the role of careereducation for lifelong education. It is expected to be:

[…] equipping the individual of sufficient utilization of resources tounderstand his [sic!] personal characteristics and to build on themfor his choice of studies and of his gainful activities in all conjunc-tions of his life, with an eye at once to contributing to the advance-ment of society and the full development of his personality.(UNESCO, 1970, p. 3)

Hence, the construction of individuals’ management of their career rests upon arationale of cultivating the individual’s self-knowledge as a means to

368 ANKI BENGTSSON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

self-responsibility in their career choice. This kind of reasoning regarding careerself-management is recaptured today, but with the emphasis on learning experi-ences in diverse so-called learning environments (EC, 2009). The latter isemphasized in outreaching activities in locations of learning outside the educa-tional institutions. The local community is one example of a learning environ-ment for entrepreneurship or self-employment, which the policy documentsspeak about as an entrepreneurship activity. If we return to the example ofmigrant entrepreneurs, it is said that tailored career education for them shouldrest upon the assumption that they face the same challenges and pitfalls asnative entrepreneurs. Yet insufficient business, marketing and management skillsamong migrant entrepreneurs are indicated: ‘Migrant entrepreneurs might alsobe less likely to utilize wider marketing techniques, as they often form a richmarket within their community or locale’ (CEDEFOP, 2011, p. 146). Instead thepolicy suggests that institutionalized knowledge of entrepreneurship in thewestern market economy is projected into the know-how of migrant entrepre-neurship. It allows the present western business ethics of entrepreneurship to betransformed, re-circulated and normalized in a new learning environment(Simons & Masschelein, 2008).

The individual is expected to work upon his/her capacity for change andadaptation to manage their career within various environments for learning.Academic learning about entrepreneurship must then, it is stated, be comple-mented with learning for entrepreneurship, or rather training in entrepreneur-ship, which is exemplified by in-reality practice and mentorship, apprenticeshipor events (EC, 2009).

They [entrepreneurship competences, author’s remark] are difficultto teach through traditional teaching and learning practices in whichthe learner tends to be a more or less passive recipient. They requireactive, learner-centred pedagogies and learning activities that use prac-tical learning opportunities from the real world. (EC, 2011, pp. 2–3)

The policy language of teaching for entrepreneurship makes use of the dichot-omy of ‘active’ and ‘passive’ learning to support the pedagogical intervention ofexperiential learning, situated knowledge and participatory teaching. The latteris articulated in terms of enabling access to ‘know-how’, that is, practical knowl-edge, and ‘know-whom’ in appropriate networks. However, the policy calculatesthat not all students will choose self-employment or entrepreneurship as thecareer path, but, as it is stated, knowledge about and for entrepreneurship ‘isessential to fostering entrepreneurial mindsets and abilities’ (EC, 2009, p. 7).Thus, the policy language of career education for entrepreneurship goes in atleast two directions: reinforcing it as a career option, which in turn is assumedto help to communicate the value of entrepreneurship. It is said that:

If the guidance value is to be included, such evaluations should inves-tigate entrepreneurship as a broader concept, including awareness ofentrepreneurship as a career option and career aspirations of youngand adult learners. They should also explore broader entrepreneurialattitudes, skills and competences. (CEDEFOP, 2011, p. 158)

369ENTERPRISING CAREER EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

The value of career education is articulated from the rationale of outcome,which is judged on the basis of evidence of performance. This kind of reasonfor changing students’ career orientation is supported by technical devices: thecurriculum, evaluation systems and benchmarking. For example, one benchmarkis to increase the number of individuals who take the career decision to be self-employed, start up a small business and raise individuals’ awareness of entrepre-neurship. These factors can be made measurable; the first two statistically andthe third by self-evaluation tests. In addition, the technical practice of bench-marking makes performance visible and comparable. In turn, the performancepractice acts upon the accountability of career education and how the careereducators and teachers respond to political goals as well as assumptions aboutstudents’ needs and aspirations (Simons, 2002).

Career educators are asked to arrange the learning environment in such away that students are able to manage their career in accordance with their ownaspirations. It is stated that teachers and career guidance professionals lack thespecific skills required to teach about and for entrepreneurship. These skills aredefined as: project management skills, pedagogical skills and personal skills.They are put in relationship to the capacity to encourage the student’s choice ofcareer and awareness of entrepreneurship (EC, 2009). It is anticipated thatcareer educators ‘are taken through the same learning process that they will usewith their students’ (EC, 2009, p. 24) and that professional educators who takeaction towards ‘becoming entrepreneurial themselves and for using active learn-ing methods and experiential learning’ should be rewarded (EC, 2011, p. 29).Achieving competences and skills and taking into account pedagogical methodssubjects the career educators to what the policy discourse seeks to establish as‘quality’ and ‘leadership’ in career education. In other words, entrepreneurialcompetences are also ascribed to the career educator, who is shaped as the facil-itator of students’ career management and learning.

Career self-management and capitalization of oneself

What presuppositions and assumptions underlie policy’s constructions of careerself-management and career education for entrepreneurship? As mention above,the notion of career self-management which is put into play in policy discoursehas emerged as a precondition for the organizational form of a network (Hall &Moss, 1998). The rationale of career self-management typifies the individualwho embodies abilities of permanently adjusting their career management inrelation to changes in society. It encourages individuals to master their careersthrough actuarial practices and embeds a moral imperative of self-responsibilityof their career (Bengtsson, 2011). Thus, the power of self-management operateson individuals in two ways: by making them to be(come) knowing subjects(subjectivation) and by making them objects of knowledge (objectification)(Foucault, 1982).

What kind of subjectivity, then, is produced through governing of self-man-agement of the career? This study has pointed to different governing practicesto mobilize self-career management for an entrepreneurial life. The policy dis-course of entrepreneurship assumes that all individuals have a will to managetheir career and it presupposes that we all learn the self-directed abilities

370 ANKI BENGTSSON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

attached to entrepreneurship. Insofar as entrepreneurship is situated as vital fora gainful career, diverse technologies are deployed through which individualsare positioned as entrepreneurial managers of their own careers. It is not simplya question of directing people to consider entrepreneurship as a career option.Following Simons and Masschelein (2008), we may understand entrepreneurshipas a governmental rationality (investment in human capital in social environ-ments), a strategic dimension (instruments, e.g. career education to stimulateentrepreneurship) and as a kind of self-government (capitalize oneself throughknowledge and competences). The latter implies a continuous reflection overone’s career and a reflection over one’s relationship to oneself and others. Thisviewpoint of career management engages the governing practice of self-knowl-edge, which is not novel for our time but can be derived from the Greek politi-cal thought of governing oneself that gave rise to prescriptions of how to behaveand to engage in care of the self (Foucault, 1988b). Townley (1995) suggeststhat the practice of self-awareness encloses a promise of self-improvementthrough transformation of the self. It is through technologies of the self, such asself-knowledge and other practices of the self, that we are assumed to constituteourselves as active subjects and made responsible for our careers (Foucault,1988a). As active subjects of career self-management, we also become a space forinterventions seeking to shape a particular subjectivity for entrepreneurship.

Further, the discourse concerning ‘competence-based careers’ which is cou-pled with a set of techniques of self-assessment and self-improvement seems tooffer people the opportunity for individual ‘autonomy’ and personal manage-ment of their careers. Encouragement of people’s reflection and self-evaluationof their abilities and competences infuses them with the capacity to invest intheir self; their aspirations, needs and well-being and in relation to this the abil-ity to assess the outcomes of learning and experiences. Consequently, the capac-ity to manage a ‘competence-centred’ career makes the individual accountablefor navigating and acquiring the requisite set of functional competences fortheir career. The political rationality communicated in the policy is that people’schoice to achieve CMS and entrepreneurial competences depends upon whetherthey look upon these as a worthwhile investment. If this is the case, the assump-tion is that people acquire these competences and distribute their performancein diverse social networks where the competences are shared and valued by oth-ers. This procedure can be regarded as an opportunity for the emergence of adiversity of competences. At the same time, the sets of CMS allocate specificcompetences for career management tied to predetermined sets of goals for life-long learning and, thus, there is a limitation of diversity of career management(Edwards & Usher, 1994).

Let us turn to the policy goal of reforming career education and how it isgoverned. According to Simons and Masschelein (2008, p. 395) it was ‘thesocial’ that became the means to transform ‘social problems’ (e.g. the work-force) into ‘educational solutions’ (e.g. curriculum reforms) in the twentiethcentury. Today, they argue, ‘learning’ is arranged as a strategic solution toproblems of social inclusion and exclusion in the society. In line with them, Iwould suggest that the policy narrative of entrepreneurship translates entrepre-neurial competences into the answer to economic and social problems.Moreover, CMS, entrepreneurial competences and the notions of the ‘entrepre-neurial mindset’ are all intellectual devices to support learning strategies for

371ENTERPRISING CAREER EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

practical knowledge. Policy discourse endorses a meaning of entrepreneurshiplinked up with economic activity and the use-value of knowledge. Knowledge ofbusiness is used for integrating entrepreneurs in non-formal guidance and shap-ing a space for entrepreneurship education where educational institutions andlocal stakeholders collaborate. It is an intervention in career education thatmoves non-institutional actors into educational institutions. What is more, itmoves bodies out of traditional educational institution into spaces which arespoken of as entrepreneurial environments and, thus, shapes learning environ-ments for the student’s future career (Krejsler, 2006). The spatial dimensionhelps us to understand how the power/knowledge assemblage of career educa-tion brings forth that which is considered to be useful knowledge and functionalpractices of career education. The technology of accountability deploys anassembly of practices, such as tools for evaluation and assessment, knowledge ofentrepreneurship and personal competences, which organizes how career educa-tion is to be performed, evaluated and administrated. It works as a dividingforce of what counts as professional or non-professional career education andcareer educators. Thus, in line with Nicoll and Fejes (2011, p. 8), it is plausibleto suggest that new power/knowledge constellations of career education pro-duce ‘new incorporations and exclusions, internal divisions and hierarchies andnew distinctions in learning in relation to them’.

Concluding remarks

To sum up, this study has sought to problematize the rationality of governanceof individuals’ career self-management in the narrative of entrepreneurship edu-cation in Europe. By examining constructions of career self-management inEuropean policy for entrepreneurship in HE educational guidance, I have illu-minated how career management today is linked to an idea of the individualbeing an active producer of his or hers career. It appears that people’s self-man-agement of their careers is both the target for the policy goals of establishingentrepreneurship as a career option and the instrument for cultivating anunderstanding of entrepreneurship in relation to oneself. It requires that theindividual perform and generate a human capital for entrepreneurship byacquiring certain competences and a certain type of knowledge. It presupposesself-management of his or hers career, which encourages the individual toreflect and act on ourselves. I have argued that self-management, as a technol-ogy of the self, is essential in governance of an entrepreneurial relation to one-self. Self-management of our careers encourages us to invest in ourselves tomeet needs, which might require a certain environment. It offers a possibility ofmotivating the entrepreneurialization of career education.

I have also pointed to the technical competence, how it organizes devicesdesigned to make people’s careers calculable and how it invites individuals totake control of his career by practising various forms of techniques of the self.One might think of entrepreneurship as a form of self-government and as suchit shapes a specific way of understanding the self, a particular subjectivity.However, it cannot be determined how the active subject enacts subjectivities indiverse situations or how governing practices are translated, and thustransformed. This form of governmentality depends on a variety of governing

372 ANKI BENGTSSON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

practices and multiplications of them, which entails translations and transforma-tions of governing practices. It leaves place for variations on the discourses ofcareer education to emerge, along with re-negotiations of subjectivities. By illu-minating that governance of entrepreneurial career self-management is notimposed upon us, but depends on self-government and a variety of governingpractices and multiplications of them, this article seeks to raise questions of thatwhich we come to take as truthful in the narrative of what is considered as beingentrepreneurial.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Ulf Olsson, Associate Professor, Department of Education,Stockholm University for useful discussions and comments.

Notes

1. The method of What’s the problem represented to be? (Bacchi, 2009) provides a set of ques-tions, which can be reformulated for a specific study: (1) What is the ‘problem’ represented tobe in a specific policy? (2) What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation ofthe ‘problem’? (3) How has this representation of the ‘problem’ come about? (4) What is leftunproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ bethought of differently? (5) What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?(6) How/where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated anddefended? How could it be questioned, disrupted and replaced?

2. Hall introduced the term protean career already in 1976, but it was not until his book The Careeris Dead—Long Live the Career, published in 1996 that it gained popularity.

3. The ‘protean career’ alludes to the Greek god Proteus, who could transform himself at will.4. The website of HEInnivate is https://heinnovate.eu/intranet/main/index.php.

References

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Acad-emy of Management Review, 36, 247–271. doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.59330882

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career as a new employment principle.In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career (pp. 3–29). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’ Frenchs Forest: Pearson cop.Bacchi, C. (2012). Why study problematizations? Making politics visible. Open Journal of Political

Science, 2(1), 1–8.Ball, C. (1989). Towards an ‘enterprising’ culture—a challenge for education and training. Paris: OECD/

CERI.Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural

Politics of Education, 13, 10–17.Bengtsson, A. (2011). European policy of career guidance: Interrelationship between career self-man-

agement and production of human capital in the knowledge economy. Journal of Policy Futuresin Education, 9, 621–633. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2011.9.5.616

Besley, A. C. (Tina). (2005). Self-denial or self-mastery? Foucault’s genealogy of the confessional self.British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33, 365–382. doi:10.1080/03069880500179582

CEDEFOP. (2011). Guidance supporting Europe’s aspiring entrepreneurs. Policy and practice to harness futurepotential. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved December 15,2013, from http://www.CEDEFOP.europa.eu/EN/Files/5514_en.pdf

Council of the European Union. (2008, November 21). Resolution of the Council and of the representa-tives of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on better integrating lifelong guidance into lifelonglearning strategies. 15030/08. 2905th Education, youth and culture, Council meeting, Brussels.Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/educ/104236.pdf

373ENTERPRISING CAREER EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

Dahlstedt, M., & Hertzberg, F. (2012). Schooling entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurship, governmentalityand education policy in Sweden at the turn of the millennium. Journal of Pedagogy, 3, 242–262.doi:10.2478/v10159-012-0012-x

Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (1994). Disciplining the subject: The power of competence. Studies in the

Education of Adults, 26(1), 1–14.European Commission (EC). (1999). Action plan to promote entrepreneurship and competitiveness. Luxem-

bourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.European Commission (EC). (2003a). Green paper on entrepreneurship in Europe. Brussels. January 21,

2003, COM 27 final. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2003/com2003_0027en01.pdf

European Commission (EC). (2003b). The role of universities in the Europe of knowledge. Brussels. Febru-ary 5, 2003, COM 58 final. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0058:FIN:en:pdf

European Commission (EC). (2006). Implementing the community Lisbon programme: Fostering entrepre-neurial mindsets through education and learning. COM (2006) 33 final. Retrieved December 15,2013, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0033en01.pdf

European Commission (EC). (2009). Best procedure project: Entrepreneurship in vocational education andtraining. Final report of the expert group. Brussels: Directorate-General for Enterprise and Indus-try. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/smes/vocational/entr_voca_en.pdf

European Commission (EC). (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Enabling teachers as a critical success fac-tor. A report on teacher education and training to prepare teachers for the challenge of entrepreneurshipeducation. Final report. Brussels: Entrepreneurship Unit, Directorate-General Enterprise andIndustry. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/files/education/teacher_education_for_entrepreneurship_final_report_en.pdf.

European Commission (EC). (2013, January 9). Entrepreneurship 2020 action plan. Reigniting the entre-preneurial spirit in Europe, Brussels. COM (2012) 795 final. Retrieved June 28, 2013, fromhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0795:FIN:en:PDF

European Council. (2000, March 23–24). Presidency conclusions. Lisbon. Retrieved December 15, 2013,from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm

European Parliament and the Council. (2006). Recommendation of the European parliament and the coun-cil of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the EuropeanUnion (L394/10). Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF

Fejes, A. (2008). To be one’s own confessor: Educational guidance and governmentality. British Jour-nal of Sociology of Education, 29, 653–664. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40375389

Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. (C. Gordon, Ed.).New York, NY: Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject of power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault:Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–226). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Foucault, M. (1984). Polemics, politics and problematizations, based on an interview conducted byPaul Rabinow. In P. Rainbow (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault (Vol. 1), Ethics (pp. 111–120).New York, NY: New Press.

Foucault, M. (1988a). Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. (L. H. Martin, H. Gutman,P. H. Hutton, Eds.). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Foucault, M. (1988b). The history of sexuality. Vol. 3, The care of the self. New York, NY: Random House.Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault

effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–103). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Gibb, A. A. (2007). Creating the entrepreneurial university: Do we need a wholly different model of

entrepreneurship? In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education. Volume1. A general perspective (pp. 67–103). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Hall, D. T. (1996). Protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 8–18.doi:10.5465/AME.1996.3145315

Hall, D. T., & Moss, J. E. (1998). The new protean career contract: Helping organizations andemployees adapt. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 22–37.

Irving, B. A. (2010). (Re)constructing career education as a socially just practice: An antipodeanreflection. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 10, 49–63. doi:10.1007/s10775-009-9172-1

Kickul, J. (2006). Pathways to new business opportunites: Innovation and strategies for the entrepre-neurial classroom. In A. Fayolle & H. Klandt (Eds.), International entrepreneurship education:Issues and newness (pp. 168–190). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Krejsler, J. (2006). Education as individualizing technology: Exploring new conditions for producingindividuality. In T. S. Popkewitz, K. Pettersson, U. Olsson, & J. Kowalczyk (Eds.), ‘The future is

374 ANKI BENGTSSON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4

not what it appears to be’. Pedagogy, genealogy and political epistemology (pp. 193–212). Stockholm:HLS forlag.

Law, B. (1996). Careers education in a curriculum. In A. G. Watts, B. Law, J. Kileen, J. M. Kidd, & R.Hawthorn (Eds.), Rethinking career education and guidance. Theory, policy and practice (pp.210–232). London: Routledge.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D, & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In D. Brown & Associ-ate (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 255–311). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nicoll, K., & Fejes, A. (2011). Lifelong learning: A pacification of ‘know how’. Studies in Philosophyand Education, 30, 403–417. doi:10.1007/s11217-011-9235-x

Parsons, F. (1909/1989). Choosing a vocation. Garrett Park, MD: Garrett Park Press.Patton, W. (2005). A postmodern approach to career education: What does it look like? Perspectives in

Education, 23, 21–28.Peters, M. (2001). Education, enterprise culture and the entrepreneurial self: A Foucauldian perspec-

tive. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2, 58–71.Rose, N. (1998). Inventing our selves. Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.Simons, M. (2002). Governmentality, education and quality management. Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswis-

senschaft, 5, 617–633. doi:10.1007/s11618-002-0035-5Simons, M., & Masschelein, J. (2008). The governmentalization of learning and the assemblage of a

learning apparatus. Educational Theory, 58, 391–415. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2008.00296.xSultana, R. G. (2012). Learning career management skills in Europe: A critical review. Journal of Edu-

cation and Work, 25, 225–248. doi:10.1007/s11618-002-0035-5Townley, B. (1995). ‘Know thyself’: Self-awareness, self-formation and managing. Organization, 2,

271–289. doi:10.1177/135050849522010UNESCO. (1970, November). Report of the committee of experts on the place and role of councelling and guid-

ance in life-long integrated education. Bratislava. (Doc. ED/CONF.16/5). Retrieved December 15,2013, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000007/000710 EB.pdf

Watts, A. G. (2000). The new career and public policy. In A. Collin & R. A. Young (Eds.), The futureof career (pp. 259–275). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

375ENTERPRISING CAREER EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 0

8:07

13

Oct

ober

201

4