Introduction:Entrepreneurship education and learning and the real world

It is with great pleasure that we introduce this special issue of Industry and Higher Education. The papers that follow have been selected, reviewed and developed for publication following their original presentation in the ‘Enterprise Education and Entrepreneurial Learning’ tracks of the 36th Annual Conference of the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE) held in Cardiff in November 2013

Learning for competitions sake: the competition know-how imperative amongst nascent entrepreneurs

Topic & Aim: The idea that a strong entrepreneurial learning imperative underpins the endeavours of the nascent entrepreneur is widely acknowledged. To this end and as part of a broader start-up competition agenda, Business Plan Competitions are readily prescribed as an important entrepreneurial learning activity. This is on the basis of participation affording development of skills, knowledge and attitudes necessary to successful venture implementation. Such prescription appears underpinned by the assumed strong synergies between the competition experience offered and how nascent entrepreneurs are purported to learn, henceforth an emphasis upon learning by and through doing, stakeholder interaction, mentoring and feedback. Business Plan Competitions are accordingly promoted as representing an authentic experience which, through the participant engaging in business plan production, pitching, networking and training workshops, provides learning of relevance and applicative benefit beyond a competition context. Despite the persistent championing of their entrepreneurial learning credentials, Business Plan Competitions represent an under researched phenomenon; particularly within the context of the entrepreneurial learning of the nascent entrepreneur. Consequently Business Plan Competition participation has largely gone unchallenged as an entrepreneurial learning experience. Acceptance of this agenda is apparent despite a clear lack of evidence to support such an impact; specifically from the perspective of the nascent entrepreneur participant both immediately following and in the months after their participation. These considerations rendered the exploration of how Business Plan Competition participation serves to provide know-how amongst nascent entrepreneurs an important and timely aim for research. Method: Given the exploratory nature of this research a longitudinal qualitative methodological approach was adopted. Positioning nascent entrepreneur participants as the focus of analysis, the paper draws upon data yielded from participants of a UK university based Business Plan Competition over three stages; at the start-of, end-of and six months after participation. In-depth open-ended interviews were utilised as a data collection method. This method enabled the accessing, capturing and elucidating nascent entrepreneur experiences of the competition but also appreciation of the meanings attached to this experience as a source of entrepreneurial learning. An inductive analytical approach was taken to identify patterns across participant accounts Data was analysed according to the stage of data collection with this analysis informing the subsequent stage[s] of data collection. Findings and Contribution: The findings of the study indicated clear shifts amongst participants away from viewing the BPC participation as an entrepreneurial learning experience but also a narrowing relevance of learning afforded through participation over the study period. At the start of the competition, participation was viewed as a valuable learning opportunity in pursuit of making the nascent venture happen. Accordingly and symptomatic of their nascent status, the entrepreneurs were aware of the know-how which they did not hold but needed to progress the venture. The competition and its experiential emphasis, was viewed as being able to provide lacking capabilities which participants moreover perceived would be beneficial in the taking their venture forward. Immediately after the competition, participants considered their participation experience to have served as an entrepreneurial learning opportunity. With some affordance of know-how sought particularly with regards to pitching, public speaking, networking and business plan production but also the self-confidence that that this knowledge could be used. Participants envisaged that the value of this learning would be realised as such in the coming months with contexts for application identified. Analysis of the data collected six months following the competition suggested that whilst participants still recognised that know-how had been developed this was viewed as having limited application outside a competition context; competition and venture implementation know-how were thus no longer seen as synonymous. Accordingly the know-how afforded through the competition was deemed by participants as being confined to participation in other competitions rather than the routine day-to-day aspects of new venture implementation. A prevailing participant view that start-up competition participation represented an important activity which would enable value to be leveraged in terms finance, marketing and networking opportunities rendered attitude that developed know-how would be useful. These findings suggest that whilst competition participation provides know-how, the outcome of this learning can be deemed confined to further competition participation. Despite previously envisaged wider applicative benefit. However this can still be viewed necessary learning given the nascent entrepreneurs need to procure value from competition participation. Accordingly the findings are used to introduce the notion of ‘start-up competition know-how’. Such know-how entails the knowledge, skill and attitudinal dimensions needed to realise value from competition participation and more specifically related to pitching, business plan production, networking, self-confidence and a pro-competition attitude. Considerations of competition know-how aside, these results serve to question the Business Plan Competition as the highly relevant and broadly applicable learning experience often espoused. What this research also highlights is a need to progress the conversation about the Business Plan Competition, with further critical examination of the competition agenda necessary

Rethinking Competition-based Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Effectuation-informed Coopetition Model

Purpose:This paper takes focus with the university-based Business Plan CompetitionBPC and proposes how the theory of effectuation might inform a new model.Such a purpose is timely given the under-challenged nature of the BPCmethodology.Approach:Extant literature pertaining to business planning and the business plan withinentrepreneurship education and effectuation is reviewed; numerous conceptualissues which undermine BPC provision in its traditional form are then identified.In response to these identified issues, a series of principles which could underpinthe introduction of an Effectuation-led Business Coopetition EBC are outlined.Findings:Strong emphasis on business plan production within a conventional BPC modelraises questions about its capacity to release the entrepreneurial potential of theHEI student and provide them with an authentic and relevant entrepreneuriallearning experience. Through using the ideas of effectuation to rethinkprovision, the action of business plan production can usefully be replaced withthe action of business implementation. As well as facilitate a beneficial shiftfrom competition to coopetition-based entrepreneurship education.Originality/Value:This paper valuably critiques the efficacy of a commonly employed yet underchallenged methodology for entrepreneurship education; the BPC. Thepropositions offered can guide competition provision in a more authentic,realistic and relevant way that is potentially better suited to inspiring andsupporting entrepreneurial new venturing amongst students and graduates nowrather than in the future. The paper thus has practical value to those designingand delivering competition-based entrepreneurship education

Delivering effective enterprise education – the role of learning design and technology

Public policy statements on enterprise and entrepreneurship education have emphasised its importance in relation to the promotion of economic growth, community development and resilience. However, there is continuing debate over the nature, scope and effectiveness of existing approaches. For example, a recent United Kingdom government study found that while there is evidence of an overall strengthening of provision, enterprise and entrepreneurship education is not yet widely embedded across the full range of vocational learning (BIS 2013). In a joint statement in 2003, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Department of Education and the Department of Employment and Learning stated that, ‘The future prosperity of society depends on all our young people, including the brightest and the best and their parents coming to regard the business sector and in particular setting up their own business, as a valid and realistic career option’, thus underlining their determination both to embed entrepreneurship skills across the curriculum and to promote awareness of entrepreneurship across the education system in Northern Ireland. This presentation will review developments in the field of enterprise education, with a particular focus on the potential contribution of new technologies and associated learning designs. It will also consider some key challenges in delivering effective educational opportunities for students, including the requirement for contextualised and experience-based learning, and encourage sharing of innovative practices among participants

Organising for Effective Academic Entrepreneurship

The contribution has three parts. In the first part the concept of academic entrepreneurship is explained, defined and put into the context of the entrepreneurial university. In the second part four cases are described: - (1) The Nikos case at the University of Twente: In Nikos teaching, research and spin-off activities are combined into one research institute. - (2) The NICENT case at the University of Ulster: NICENT is set up under the Science and Enterprise Centre activities in the UK. It focuses on education and training of students (undergraduates, graduates and post-graduates) and the stimulation of academic entrepreneurship in the academic constituency. - (3) The S-CIO case at Saxion Universities for Applied Sciences: In 2004 Saxion set up this Centre to have a one-stop shop for all entrepreneurial activities at the University. - (4) The Chair in Technological Entrepreneurship at Tshwane University: The focus of the Chair is on education of (under)graduate students in (technological) entrepreneurship and on the stimulation of entrepreneurship in the wider community. Each case has its own specific angle on academic entrepreneurship and in the thrid part the four cases are compared and analysed according to the model presented in the first part. Finally, some conclusions are formulated regarding the organisation of effective academic entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial learning in practice: The impact of knowledge transfer

The aim of this research is to provide perspectives on how entrepreneurial practitioners, specifically owners of high-tech small firms (HTSFs), engage with knowledge transfer and learn. The authors draw on extant research and report on the views and observations of the principals in two case study companies in the HTSF sector with regard to growing their ventures and developing learning while part of a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) programme. Entrepreneurial learning is an area of significant interest due to the growth of entrepreneurship and the varied ways in which learning can take place. There are many different interventions that can be used to transfer knowledge and develop learning, but there is limited, if any, consensus on their respective effectiveness. The researchers used an ethnographic approach in two companies over an 18-month period. The study concludes that the KTP intervention facilitates an opportunity for learning through disruption, with the key barrier to any new learning being established practice. Interestingly, the findings suggest that entrepreneurial learning is greatly facilitated by ‘on-the-job’ learning

Case study insights to the impact of knowledge transfer in high-tech small firms on entrepreneurial practitioner learning

Knowledge transfer, as the term suggests, is about the exchange of knowledge between associates in a partnership. The ambition of such knowledge transfer is the pursuit and exploitation of new, innovative opportunities and the facilitation of learning. The theatre for such activity is, largely, within high technology small to medium sized firms. The partnership commonly includes those within a business venture, an academic or team of academics from a Higher Education Institute, (HEI), and government agencies. It is essentially about the transfer of tangible and intellectual property, expertise, learning and skills between academia and the non-academic community, particularly the business community. The ‘knowledge’ transferred can be formal and clearly expressed, for example, from published research, informal in terms of individual experiences and tacit as in residing in the individual without being stated and therefore difficult to articulate in direct communication. Transferring knowledge, particularly tacit knowledge, and facilitating learning, is a complex undertaking. The entrepreneurial business venturer, for example, busy with developing an enterprise, may not be fully aware of, or have thought critically about, the wealth of knowledge that resides within him/her as a consequence of years of business experience. The specific challenge to transfer ‘knowledge’ is therefore to capture, organize, create, and distribute such knowledge from one part of an enterprise to another or indeed throughout an enterprise in ways that effect a step-change in the progress of the business venture and to ensure its legacy remains valid for those within the enterprise into the future though the development of appropriate applied learning. The Knowledge Transfer Partnership, (KTP), scheme in the UK, is specifically designed to help those within entrepreneurial firms to acquire the knowledge they need to pursue growth through a greater commitment to, and development of, competencies in innovation practice and opportunity focus. The link between the entrepreneurial business venturer, the academic in the HEI and the graduate, the Associate, recruited by the HEI and lodged within the firm, are the key players in determining the potential of the scheme to facilitate learning that will have a positive impact on the future of the business. The Associate, as an agent for positive, innovative change in the business, brings with him/her new knowledge to be introduced into the business, challenging established practices and processes and supporting innovative step-changes in the business. The placements are temporary but potentially can be a ‘long-interview’. In a recent independent report, (The Knowledge Transfer Partnership programme: an impact review, From: Innovate UK, First published: 13 October 2015), it was noted, for example, that for every £1 of KTP grant invested up to £8 of net extra GVA was generated, that 94% of associates said KTP had had a positive impact on their personal/career development, that over a third said the impact had actually been transformational for their development and career, that 99% of knowledge base organisations would recommend the KTP programme and that 95% of KTP associates would recommend it to other graduates/post graduates. Knowledge transfer is, therefore, clearly both potentially valuable and challenging for those engaged in it. Many high-technology small to medium sized firms emerge as a consequence of the creativity and innovativeness of a founding entrepreneur and his or her team and the early development of such enterprises can often be characterised by organic development and considerable adhocracy. Innovation in terms of new product or process development lie at the core of what founders and their teams do although not always formally recognised and supported. Early practices that are seen to work become established. That key focus of knowledge-transfer is on supporting appropriate and sustainable learning, where the Entrepreneurial Practitioner acquires and learns to implement new knowledge of best practice in business development, where the Associate gains experience of business practice and an opportunity to apply learned theory and where the academic learns the value of their research in an applied context. The focus of this research is on the Entrepreneurial Practitioner’s learning. Cope (2003) suggests however that the entrepreneurship discipline does not currently possess sufficient conceptual frameworks to explain how entrepreneurs learn. He concluded ‘..entrepreneurial learning is not characterised by the notions of stability, consistency or predictability. Rather, evidence suggests that the concepts of metamorphosis, discontinuity and change more appropriately encapsulate the dynamics of this phenomenon’, (p. 26). When it comes to working, learning and innovation, Brown and Duguid (1991) argue that ‘Work practice is generally viewed as conservative and resistant to change, learning is generally viewed as distinct from working and problematic in the face of change and innovation is generally viewed as the disruptive but necessary imposition of change on the other two’, (p40), highlighting the tensions that often accompany the learning process within the developing HTSF. In this exploratory, ethnographic report, two of the authors were each embedded in a high-tech small firm as part of a knowledge transfer partnership, (KTP), and in the research key decision-makers in each firm are observed and interviewed over a two-year period in order to gain insights to practitioner learning over that period. In response to Cope’s suggestion, and reflecting those of Brown and Duguid, the authors’ aim is to provide perspectives on how Entrepreneurial Practitioners, owners of high-tech small firms, (HTSF), and engaged with knowledge transfer, learn