Personalizing Entrepreneurial Learning: A Pedagogy for Facilitating the Know Why

As the global diffusion of entrepreneurship education continues, along with increasing investment in, and expectations of, educational initiatives, it has become important to articulate what we are teaching and why, along with the specifics of where, how, and to whom. Yet, despite a growing consensus about what constitute the entrepreneurial activities and competencies required to start a new venture, there has been little agreement regarding the content of entrepreneurship education, or how learning should be delivered (Bygrave 2007, TheHandbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship, 17–48. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; Edelman, Manolova, and Brush 2008, Entrepreneurship Education: Correspondence Between Practices of Nascent Entrepreneurs and Textbook Prescriptions for Success. Academy of Management Learning and Education 7(1):56–70; Honig, Davidsson, and Karlsson 2005, Learning strategies of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Competence-based Management 1(3):67–88; Mwasalwiba 2010, Entrepreneurship Education: A Review of Its Objectives, Teaching Methods, and Impact Indicators. Education+Training 52(1):20–47). Clearly, the purpose of any education, the “why” for the teacher, shapes the content, the “what”, and the method, the “how”. But what about the personal “how” and “why” for the learner? Sarasvathy’s theory of effectuation (Sarasvathy 2001, Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review 26(2):243–63; 2008, New Horizons in Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar) has led educators to consider how an entrepreneur’s personal resources and resourcefulness can and should alter their how. Scholars are now sharing pedagogical approaches for motivating that type of learning (Fletcher and Watson 2007, Entrepreneurship, Management Learning and Negotiated Narratives: ‘Making it Otherwise for Us – Otherwise for Them’. Management Learning 38(1):9–26; Gibb 2011, Concepts into practice: meeting the challenge of development of entrepreneurship educators around an innovative paradigm – the case of the International Entrepreneurship Educators’ Programme (IEEP). International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 17(2):146–165; Kyr\uf62008, A Theoretical Framework for Teaching and Learning Entrepreneurship. International Journal of Business and Globalisation 2(1):39–55; Ollila and Williams Middleton 2011, The Venture Creation Approach: Integrating Entrepreneurial Education and Incubation at the University. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 13(2):161–78). However, little research has addressed the personal why for the entrepreneurial learner (Rae 2005, Entrepreneurial Learning: A Narrative-Based Conceptual Model. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 12(3):323–35; Rigg and O’Dwyer 2012, Becoming an entrepreneur: researching the role of mentors in identity construction. Education + Training 54(4):319–329). In this paper, we seek to fill this gap by exploring how entrepreneurship educators can facilitate the personalized learning to develop the Know Why for nascent entrepreneurs in the process of becoming entrepreneurial. We combine theories of entrepreneurship practice, education, and learning to propose a model for entrepreneurial Know Why. We utilize a case study of an entrepreneurship program applying a learning-through-venture-creation approach to identify a pedagogical approach in which learning entrepreneurial Know Why is facilitated. Thus, the purpose of this paper is twofold: to contribute to the theory of entrepreneurial learning and to contribute to the pedagogy for entrepreneurship, by explaining the meaning and significance of the entrepreneurial Know Why and by describing an educational approach that facilitates its development

Beyond the Explicit: excavating a pedagogical approach to knowledge for entrepreneurial action

While the variation in objectives and methods for entrepreneurship education is significant, most entrepreneurship educations deliver one of two main interpretations: learning about the phenomenon of entrepreneurship (learning about) or learning a skill-set to become an entrepreneur (learning for, in or through) (Mwasalwiba, 2010; Rasmussen & Sorheim, 2006). Educations aimed at training individuals to act entrepreneurially often employ an action-based approach (Bennett, 2006; Jones & Iredale, 2006; Leitch & Harrison, 1999; Rasmussen & Sorheim, 2006). We believe that even action-based entrepreneurial educations stop short of achieving the personal learning required by the individual for engagement in the entrepreneurial process. This paper is the result of a joint effort to go beyond the explicit program design and curriculum in our two institutions to excavate the implicit commonalities in our pedagogical approaches for developing personalized entrepreneurial learning. We call this learning the entrepreneurial Know Why and we believe it is fundamental to the development of entrepreneurial intention, behavior and capacity. Thus the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the pedagogy for entrepreneurship by explaining the meaning and significance of the entrepreneurial Know Why and by describing an educational approach that facilitates its development

Beyond the Explicit: excavating a pedagogical approach to knowledge for entrepreneurial action

While the variation in objectives and methods for entrepreneurship education is significant, most entrepreneurship educations deliver one of two main interpretations: learning about the phenomenon of entrepreneurship (learning about) or learning a skill-set to become an entrepreneur (learning for, in or through) (Mwasalwiba, 2010; Rasmussen & Sorheim, 2006). Educations aimed at training individuals to act entrepreneurially often employ an action-based approach (Bennett, 2006; Jones & Iredale, 2006; Leitch & Harrison, 1999; Rasmussen & Sorheim, 2006). We believe that even action-based entrepreneurial educations stop short of achieving the personal learning required by the individual for engagement in the entrepreneurial process. This paper is the result of a joint effort to go beyond the explicit program design and curriculum in our two institutions to excavate the implicit commonalities in our pedagogical approaches for developing personalized entrepreneurial learning. We call this learning the entrepreneurial Know Why and we believe it is fundamental to the development of entrepreneurial intention, behavior and capacity. Thus the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the pedagogy for entrepreneurship by explaining the meaning and significance of the entrepreneurial Know Why and by describing an educational approach that facilitates its development

Entrepreneurial Identity Construction - what does existing literature tell us?

Objectives. Research in entrepreneurship education maps the competencies, skills and knowledge necessary for entrepreneurship (Bager 2011; Jones 2010; Mwasalwiba 2010; S\ue1nchez 2011), exploring whether the skills taught are applicable to entrepreneurial practice (Edelman et al. 2008). However, entrepreneurial learning has not addressed how identity construction may be integrated with individual competency development for entrepreneurial action. Sveningsson and Alvesson (2003) emphasize that identity is central to meaning, motivation, decision-making, and other activities that can be seen as critical for entrepreneurial action. Building from a review of literature, the article explores research addressing entrepreneurship and identity, focusing on processes for identity construction. The aim of the exploration is to identify processes of entrepreneurial identity construction that can be applied to entrepreneurship education. Prior work. There exists literature regarding identity and entrepreneurship, but limited publications of these areas in combination. In particular, nothing has been proposed regarding the process by which nascent entrepreneurs construct identity.Approach. The key terms ‘identity’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ were used in a database search using Scopus, restricting to published articles within the social sciences/humanities. Of the resulting 161 articles, 26 were selected for further analysis, based upon relevancy to the research question. Common themes were identified. Results. Many of the articles reviewed present identity as a fixed state of existence, resulting in categorizations of entrepreneurial identities (L\ue4hteenm\ue4ki 1997; Melin 2001; Vesalainen and Pihkala 2000). These categories include entrepreneurial identity as it relates to ethnicity, gender, careers, and the family framework, and not method or process of construction. A small portion of the literature reviewed discusses themes such as narrative and storytelling as means towards shaping an entrepreneurial identity. Of these, some also propose entrepreneurial identity as constructed in the situation (Down and Warren 2008; Hytti 2003; Johansson 2004) and through socialization (Falck et al. 2010; Rigg and O\u27Dwyer 2012), but the question how entrepreneurial identity is constructed in the educational process has not significantly explored in the literature.Implications. A review of the literature illustrates existing knowledge gaps regarding entrepreneurial identity and areas requiring additional investigation regarding entrepreneurial identity construction. This informs areas for future research while also contributing to a consolidation of entrepreneurial identity construction. Value. An understanding of entrepreneurial identity and identity construction can allow for development of entrepreneurial capacity through learning and training programs. This can have an impact on the amount of entrepreneurial activity in a society, contributing to employment opportunities, new products/services, and other outcomes of entrepreneurship

Constructing entrepreneurial identity in entrepreneurship education

While increasing demand for entrepreneurial competence has led to constant growth in entrepreneurship education, few programs provide robust outcomes such as actual new ventures or entrepreneurial behavior in real contexts. This is due to a gap in our theoretical understanding of what it takes to become entrepreneurial. Research suggests that beyond acquiring knowledge and skill to act entrepreneurially, entrepreneurial learning also involves the development of an entrepreneurial identity. Yet most accounts of entrepreneurship education do not include this concept. We explore entrepreneurial identity and how it is constructed within an entrepreneurship education.Connecting entrepreneurial learning theory with literature on identity, we developed a set of categories addressing the construction of an entrepreneurial identity. In a case study at a European technical university, we used these categories to sample and analyze narrative data developed as students created new ventures. The results support our supposition that, in the context of a new venture creation program, students experience challenges that lead to the development of entrepreneurial identity. Based on these findings, we argue that, if the educational objective is learning for the practice of entrepreneurship, then identity construction needs to be seen as important a goal as the development of knowledge and skill

Team work in context : institutional mediation in the public-service professional bureaucracy

This paper examines how context shapes team work within the public-service professional bureaucracy. We examine the effects of an interaction between both macro-institutional and local-organizational context upon the micro-negotiation of team work. Specifically, we consider how features of local context mediate professional-institutional effects. Drawing upon neo-institutionalism (Lawrence and Suddaby 2006; Powell and DiMaggio 1991), we view team members as ‘institutional agents’ (Scott 2008), shaping team work in ways that either reproduce or transform professional structures within particular local conditions. Exemplary of international government transformative efforts for public-service enhancement (Newman 2001; Osborne and Gaebler 1992), we focus upon a UK government initiative to reconfigure professional relationships through introducing team work in National Health Service genetic care. Findings from two qualitative, comparative case studies reveal contrasting outcomes: reproduction or transformation of the professional institution, respectively. Specific local conditions — organizational, and human and social in particular — combine to produce these divergent mediating effects towards inertia or change. This highlights the importance of antecedents to team work and taking a historical perspective to understand the influence of context. While the challenges of reconfiguring professional structures through team work are shown, our analysis also suggests optimism regarding possibilities for change, albeit within certain local conditions. The challenge for management and policy-makers becomes the extent to which — and indeed, if at all — such facilitative local environments might be supported