INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
9.5 Conclusions
A survey of the academic research (Brenner et al., 1991; Chen et al., 1998; Chell et al., 1991; Filion, 1997) identifies several factors that can be associated a priori with entrepre- neurial aptitudes: individual characteristics (independence, result-orientation, internal locus of control, flexibility, leadership), motivations (self-realization, search of auton- omy) and external factors (socio-cultural environment, family context, education).
Similarly, typologies of entrepreneurs have been suggested. However, the entrepreneurial process remains multifaceted and contingent, and cannot be reduced to a predefined model that can be used to identify a priori future entrepreneurs. Indeed, some psycho- logical tests or typology that had been developed to ‘spot’ entrepreneurs have been severely criticized (Chell, 1985). If the elements mentioned above can contribute to improve the design and implementation of the selection process (that is, the format and content of the written application and interview), the entrepreneurial aptitudes of a student remain very difficult to assess a priori in a systematic manner. However, even this audience of ‘resume-driven’ students can play a role in the diffusion of an entrepreneur- ial culture within their future organizations or within society at large and therefore con- tribute to the objectives of the EEP. Indeed, the promotion of an entrepreneurial culture should also involve the education of students whose career will have indirect entrepre- neurial features (Saporta and Verstraete, 2000). Such students will be involved with entre- preneurs as managers and consultants, or can contribute to the emergence of a more entrepreneurial environment.
The ‘technology intensity’ of the program could also have mitigated its entrepreneurial impact so far, as technology-oriented start-ups such as university spin-offs were probably overrepresented in the first editions of the program. Indeed, as part of the interdiscipli- nary requirements all project groups had initially to include a student from the engineer- ing faculty. As a consequence most of the master thesis projects had a strong technology orientation. In particular, a large proportion of those projects related to the valorization of intellectual property and technologies developed within the university. This technol- ogy bias excluded de facto a wide range of entrepreneurial opportunities, for example in the retail or service sectors, that could otherwise have been pursued in the context of the EEP. To deal with this ‘technology’ issue, the rules defining the structure of the master thesis groups have since been made more flexible. Students are now allowed to develop their own project even if it involves no or limited technology and therefore offers limited room for an in-depth contribution from an engineering student. Yet all groups must remain interdisciplinary, that is, include students from at least two different schools.
The last element that could explain the limitation of the entrepreneurial impact of the EEP relates to the relatively low level of entrepreneurial culture in the education system as a whole in Europe in general and in Belgium in particular. This issue, however, goes far beyond the scope and reach of the EEP considered here, and should probably be tackled through other ‘mobilization’ EEPs, as defined earlier in this chapter, aimed at introducing a more entrepreneurial culture during the first years of university education or even at an earlier stage.
education is well suited to the teaching approaches related to interdisciplinary content.
However, as discussed above, the interdisciplinary dimension of entrepreneurship educa- tion programs also generates specific challenges in an academic environment, such as the lack of readiness of academics to collaborate across their respective disciplinary fields or the difficulty of defining and applying common assessment criteria and methods.
Moreover, the case study of a university EEP presented in this chapter illustrates how interdisciplinary university programs can at bachelor or master degree level already help students to build bridges between academia and the ‘real’ world, as well as between themselves and their future professional development. It allows students to be exposed not only to interdisciplinary content and problems but also to interdisciplinary teamwork, managed in the case of the EEP around their entrepreneurial master thesis project.
Programs like this interdisciplinary EEP provide fertile grounds for the development by teachers of new educational approaches and skills that can spill over to other (discipli- nary) programs of the university. This reinforces interdisciplinarity as one of the core assets of the university, where various experience, theories and knowledge can confront and feed each other. As Schumpeter stressed decades ago, most innovations do emerge from the creative combination of existing knowledge.
On the other hand, and as stressed by the students, the interactive and embedded learn- ing approaches developed in interdisciplinary programs such as the EEP presented here are one of their most attractive features. Those approaches are now being reinforced within academic institutions and are developed throughout the university as a way to address new problems within their respective contexts. As a paradox, this could lead to a decreasing interest of the students for the EEP, as its original features in terms of educa- tional approaches can now be found in many other programs. However, in a retroactive movement, the generalization of active and contextualized teaching methods could lead more students to be attracted by interdisciplinary programs like the UCL EEP, because they would already have become accustomed to its methods.
In their introduction to the special Academy of Management Learning and Education issue on entrepreneurship education, Greene et al. (2004) stress the fact that entrepre- neurship classes have often been training grounds for teaching methods which tend to be generalized today within traditional business courses, such as computer simulations, prac- titioners’ testimonies and interdisciplinary teaching. We believe that this generalization can be considered a success for the university as a whole, and for entrepreneurship pro- grams in particular, because these could serve as role models.
Finally, the intrinsic interdisciplinary dimension of the EEP should be considered in the light of its overall objectives. Those objectives should definitely not only relate to the number of start-ups created in the short-term, but also be considered in terms of entre- preneurial activities, intention and attitudes in their widest sense. This includes new busi- ness development, involvement in SMEs and all the activities directly or indirectly related to entrepreneurship. The objectives of an EEP should therefore also be conceived from a cultural perspective, as a contributor to the emergence of an environment that stimulates and values entrepreneurship. In other words, as David Birch declared in a recent interview (Aronsson, 2004), the role of entrepreneurship education is to stress the social and eco- nomic role and importance of entrepreneurship, as well as to make the public and the political leaders aware of it in order to generate a favorable environment. Among all mech- anisms contributing to this cultural objective, university programs are ‘entrepreneurial 162 Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education
socialization spaces’ (Vaudelin and Levy, 2003, p. 5). Universities can play an active role in the creation and development of entrepreneurial aptitudes, intentions and attitudes, as illustrated by the multiple initiatives launched by universities with the support of public authorities and private organizations across Europe. But, while this often meets an explicit demand from the students, the university cannot play this educational role alone. Earlier initiatives, before students reach the university, are probably necessary.
In terms of further research developments, we are currently trying to assess more accu- rately the impact of the analysed EEP on entrepreneurial intentions and on entrepre- neurial career paths through longitudinal surveys on our students and through a survey conducted among our alumni. Another interesting research avenue would be to compare the skills students develop through such an interdisciplinary EEP with those developed by students with a similar disciplinary background, but through entrepreneurship classes taught within their school only. Such a study could help answer the following question: is interdisciplinarity only one pedagogical mean among others to teach entrepreneurship, or is it intrinsically bound to EEPs and a distinctive feature of the academic field of entre- preneurship and of its teaching?
Notes
1. These are the only two reports specifically analysing Wallonia. Although the data for 2003 show some improvement, later reports about Belgium as a whole conclude that the situation is still worrying.
2. We are currently conducting research about the EEP’s entrepreneurial impact in terms of careers paths. Our current knowledge of our former students’ entrepreneurial activities rests on informal information.
References
Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (2003), ‘Introduction to the Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research’, in Z.J. Acs and D.B. Audrestch (eds),Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Boston, MA, Dordrecht and London:
Kluwer Academic, pp. 3–20.
Albert, P. and Marion, S. (1998), ‘Ouvrir l’enseignement à l’esprit d’entreprendre’, in S. Birley and D. Muzyka (eds),L’art d’entreprendre, Paris: Village Mondial, pp. 28–30.
Aronsson, M. (2004), ‘Education matters – but does entrepreneurship education. An interview with David Birch’,Academy of Management Learning and Education,3(3), 289–92.
Bayad, M., Schmitt, C. and Grandhaye, J.-P. (2002), ‘Pédagogie par projet et entrepreneuriat: réflexions autour d’une démarche et de différentes expériences’,Actes du 2ème Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Bordeaux, April.
Béchard, J.-P. and Grégoire, D. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education research revisited: the case of higher edu- cation’,Academy of Management Learning and Education,4(1), 22–43.
Block, Z. and Stumpf, S.A. (1992), ‘Entrepreneurship education research: experience and challenge’, in D.L. Sexton and J.M. Kasarda (eds),The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship, Boston, MA: PWS-Kent, pp. 17–45.
Bloom, B.S. (1979),Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, London:
Longman.
Brenner, O.C., Pringle, C.D. and Greenhaus, J.H. (1991), ‘Perceived fulfilment of organizational employment versus entrepreneurship: work values and career intentions of business college graduates’,Journal of Small Business Management,29(3), 62–74.
Bruyat, C. and Julien, P.-A. (2000), ‘Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship’,Journal of Business Venturing,16, 165–80.
Campbell, D.T. (1969), ‘Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience’, in M. Sherif and C. Sherif (eds),Interdisciplinary Relationships in Social Sciences, Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Chell, E. (1985), ‘The entrepreneurial personality: a few ghosts laid to rest?’International Small Business Journal, 3(3), 43–54.
Chell, E., Haworth, J. and Brearley, S. (1991),The Entrepreneurial Personality: Concepts, Cases and Categories, London: Routledge.
Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G. and Crick, A. (1998), ‘Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?’,Journal of Business Venturing,13(4), 295–316.
Interdisciplinary approaches in entrepreneurship education programs 163
Commission of the European Communities (2003),Green Paper: Entrepreneurship in Europe, COM (2003) 27 final, Brussels, 21 March.
Cooper, A. (2003), ‘Entrepreneurship: the past, the present and the future’, in Z.J. Acs and D.B. Audrestch (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Boston, MA, Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic, pp. 21–34.
Dahlqvist, J., Davidsson, P. and Wiklund, J. (1999), ‘Initial conditions as predictors of new venture performance:
a replication and extension of the Cooper et al. study’, paper presented at the 44th World Conference of the International Council for Small Business, Naples, 20–23 June.
Dilts, J.C. and Fowler, S.M. (1999), ‘Internships: preparing students for an entrepreneurial career’,Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship,11(1), 51–63.
Dunkelberg, W.G. and Cooper, A.C. (1982), ‘Patterns of small business growth’,Academy of Management Proceedings, 409–13.
Ehrlich, S.B., De Noble, A.F., Jung, D. and Pearson, D. (2000), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship training pro- grams on an individual’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Conference Proceedings, www.babson.edu/entrep/fer, accessed May 2006.
Fayolle, A. (1999), ‘Orientation entrepreneuriale des étudiants et évaluation de l’impact des programmes d’en- seignement de l’entrepreneuriat sur les comportements entrepreneuriaux des étudiants des grandes écoles de gestion françaises: étude exploratoire’, in Actes du premier Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Lille, November, pp. 180–91.
Fayolle, A. (2000), ‘Editorial du dossier sur l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat’,Revue Gestion 2000,17(3), 74–5.
Fayolle, A. (2003), ‘Using the theory of planned behaviour in assessing entrepreneurship teaching program’, IntEnt 2003 Conference, September, Grenoble.
Fayolle, A. (2005), ‘Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: behaviour performing or intention increasing?’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,2(1), 89–98.
Fayolle, A., Gailly B. and Lassas-Clerc N. (2005), ‘The long-term effect of entrepreneurship teaching pro- grammes on entrepreneurial intention’,RENT XIX – Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Naples, 17–18 November.
Fiet, J.O. (2000a), ‘The pedagogical side of teaching entrepreneurship’,Journal of Business Venturing,16, 101–17.
Fiet, J.O. (2000b), ‘The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship’,Journal of Business Venturing,16, 1–24.
Filion, L.J. (1997), ‘Le champ de l’entrepreneuriat: historique, évolutions et tendances’,Revue Internationale P.M.E.,10(2), 129–72.
Gartner, W.B. and Vesper, K.H. (1994), ‘Experiments in entrepreneurship education: successes and failures’, Journal of Business Venturing,9(2), 179–87.
Gibb, A. (1992), ‘The enterprise culture and education: understanding enterprise education and its links with small business, entrepreneurial and wider education goals’,International Small Business Journal,11(3), 11–35.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2002),The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Rapport Régional sur la Wallonie, www.gemconsortium.org/, May 2006.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2003),The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Rapport Régional sur la Wallonie, www.gemconsortium.org/, May 2006.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), ‘Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review’,International Small Business Journal,15, 56–77.
Greene, P., Katz, J. and Johannisson, B. (2004), ‘From the guest co-editors: entrepreneurship Education’, Academy of Management Learning and Education,3(3), 238–41.
Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), ‘Upper-echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers’, Academy of Management Review,9(2), 193–206.
Houssaye, J. (1993), ‘Le triangle pédagogique, ou comment comprendre la situation pédagogique’, in J. Houssaye (ed.),La pédagogie: une encyclopédie pour aujourd’hui, Paris: ESF éditeur.
Johannisson, B. (1991), ‘University training for entrepreneurship: a Swedish approach’,Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,3(1), 67–82.
Katz, J.A. (2003), ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education:
1876–1999’,Journal of Business Venturing,18, 283–300.
Klandt, H. (2004), ‘Entrepreneurship education and research in German-speaking Europe’, Academy of Management Learning and Education,3(3), 293–301.
Kolvereid, L. and Moen, O. (1997), ‘Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepre- neurship make a difference?’,Journal of European Industrial Training,21(4), 154–60.
Kuratko, D.F. (2005), ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends and challenges’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,29(5), 577–97.
Low, M.B. (2001), ‘The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: specification of purpose’,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,25(4), 17–27.
164 Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education
McGrath, R.G. (2003), ‘Connecting the study of entrepreneurship and theories of capitalist progress: an epilogue’, in Z.J. Acs and D.B. Audrestch (eds),Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Boston, MA, Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic, pp. 515–31.
Noel, T.W. (2001), ‘Effects of entrepreneurial education on intent to open a business’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Conference Proceedings, www.babson.edu/entrep/fer, May 2006.
Petrie, H.G. (1992), ‘Interdisciplinary education: are we faced with insurmountable opportunities?’,Review of Research Education,18, 299–333.
Rege Colet, N. (2002),Enseignement universitaire et interdisciplinarité: un cadre pour analyser, agir et évaluer, Bruxelles, De Boeck Université.
Rege Colet, N. (2004), ‘Plenary conference of the Chaire de Pédagogie Universitaire’,Enseignement interdisci- plinaire: le défi de la cohérence pédagogique, UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve, February.
Saporta, B. and Verstraete, T. (2000), ‘Réflexions sur l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat dans les composantes en sciences de gestion des universités françaises’,Revue Gestion 2000,17(3), 97–121.
Schmitt, C. (2003), ‘De la formation à l’entrepreneuriat à la formation en entrepreneuriat: le rôle de la com- plexité’, Grand Atelier MCX-APC,La formation au défi de la ccomplexité: interoger et modéliser les interven- tions de formation en situations complexes, Lille, September.
Storey, D.J. (1994),Understanding the Small Business Sector, London and Boston, MA: International Thomson Business Press.
Vaudelin, J.-P. and Levy, T. (2003), ‘L’entrepreneuriat est-il énonçable et enseignable’, in AIREPME, L’entrepreneur en actions: contextes et pratiques, Agadir, October.
Verstraete, T. and Fayolle, A. (2004), ‘Quatre paradigmes pour cerner le domaine de recherche en entrepre- neuriat’,Proceedings of the 7ème Congrès International Francophone en Entrepreneuriat et PME, October, Montpellier.
Vesper, K.H. and Gartner, W.B. (1997), ‘Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education’,Journal of Business Venturing,12(5), 403–21.
Westhead, P. and Birley, S. (1995), ‘Employment growth in new independent owner-managed firms in Great Britain’,International Small Business Journal,13(3), 11–34.
Interdisciplinary approaches in entrepreneurship education programs 165