13

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND RESEARCH: EMERGING TRENDS AND CONCERNS

Cordelia Mason International School of Entrepreneurship Universiti Kuala Lumpur cordelia@ise.unikl.edu.my

ABSTRACT Entrepreneurship has gained much prominence in both developed nations and developing nations and has thus created higher demand for entrepreneurship education. There is increasing emphasis on education as a way to eradicate poverty and entrepreneurship as a catalyst for economic development by many nations around the world. In tandem, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education have been the focus of researchers, educators as well as public and private bodies. This paper explores the initiatives in entrepreneurship education in various parts of the world through content analysis of journal articles and websites on the subject in order to identify emerging trends and concerns. It describes efforts at the national and international levels to produce entrepreneurs and enhanced entrepreneurship training in countries such as China, , South Africa, Ireland and Malaysia. In the conclusion, observations of changes in trends are discussed. The paper aims to contribute to the understanding of entrepreneurship education and training and is especially relevant in the area of course design.

Field of Research:

Entrepreneurship, Education, Training, Teaching.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.0 INTRODUCTION Entrepreneurship has gained much prominence in both developed and developing nations and has thus created higher demand for entrepreneurship education. The word entrepreneur and entrepreneurship is generally attributed to Richard Cantillon for coining the word in his essay entitled Essay Sur la Nature du Commerce en General (translated as Essay on the Nature of Trade in General) which was written in 1732 and published posthumously in 1755. The terms are derived from the French entreprendre, which is translated as meaning to undertake. In existing literature, entrepreneurship has been described and conceptualized in various ways, encompassing a broad range of interchangeable meanings and situations, and as a concept and economic activity is full of contradictions and subject to conceptual and contextual debate (Matlay,2005). The various continuum and shades of meanings include capturing of ideas, converting them into products and, or service and building a venture to take the product to market(Johnson, 2001); inclusion of risk taking, pro activity and innovation as key elements in entrepreneurship(Dana,2001); expanding the realms of meaning to include corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship (Drucker, 1994) and tied entrepreneurship and real corporate entrepreneur (Kandola, 2002). Tied entrepreneurship is defined as guided behavior which exists in the shape of formally created positions or project groups, established to come up with new ideas or to develop existing ideas. (Kandola, 2002).

14

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

Real corporate entrepreneurship is defined as entrepreneurship which involves fostering entrepreneurial behaviors within an established organization. There is increasing emphasis on education as a way to eradicate poverty and entrepreneurship as a catalyst for economic development by many nations around the world. In tandem, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education have been the focus of researchers, educators as well as public and private bodies. Hynes (1996) observes that this focus has emerged for a number of reasons such as recognition of the contribution by small firm sector and job creation. Hynes claims that government institutions and development agencies face challenges on how to create an enterprise culture to foster development of small firms. Nieman (2001) states that the African government recognizes the importance of developing a strong small, medium and micro-enterprise to create jobs to solve the high unemployment rate. Collins et al. (2004) mention that the UK government aims to encourage greater levels of enterprise, small business and entrepreneurship by creating the environment in which these activities can flourished; and further claimed that the present day graduate is appraised based on his ability to manage and apply knowledge in action and in an entrepreneurial context, and not only in his ability to acquire and assimilate knowledge. Matlay (2005) aptly deduces that entrepreneurship is perceived as crucial to the national integrity of virtually all countries of the world. The prevailing view of the importance of entrepreneurship has induced many nations to develop entrepreneurship education and training. What are the current models, assumptions, activities, philosophies, etc surrounding the development of entrepreneurship education and training? What problems and achievements have been recorded in the field? To provide some background on entrepreneurship education, the next section contains some literature review on entrepreneurship education. 2.0 ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION The term entrepreneurship education implies that entrepreneurship can be taught and indeed this idea has been a popular topic for research. Among others, the angles of research include whether entrepreneurship can be taught (Dana, 2001;Henry et. Al,2005); the impact academic career training has on the ability to innovate and recognise opportunities (Craig et al, 2006); measurement of individuals leaning towards entrepreneurship using the Enterprising Managers Assessment Questionnaire.(EMAQ) (Deamer and Earle, 2004); emerging trends and challenges for entrepreneurship education in the 21st Century (Kuratko, 2003);and development in the use of words to describe courses in entrepreneurship education(Gibb, 1993, 2000; Gibb and Nelson, 1996 and Henry et al., 2005). The findings of these studies provide a collage of perspectives from which we can draw insights on entrepreneurship education. Firstly, Dana(2001) who uses the opposing concepts of Schumpeterian entrepreneurship and Kirznerian entrepreneurship to try to answer the question of whether we can teach entrepreneurship states that in teaching entrepreneurship, it is useful to differentiate between entrepreneurial skills and managerial skills needed to operate small businesses, and thus the need to differentiate the teachings of directives and transformation of minds. Craig et. al.(2006) also uses the seminal writing of Schumpeter and Kirzner to find answers to their research question Are some individuals better at being innovators while others are better able to recognize entrepreneurial opportunities, and if so, does academic career training matters? Their findings reveal that individuals with engineering training were not as proficient at recognizing opportunities as those trained in business. This study has pedagogical implications especially for engineering schools where course developers need to understand students needs and propensities.

15

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

Deamer and Earle(2004) contributes to entrepreneurship education by using their psychometric tool, EMAQ, to elicit information about the individuals knowledge and experience in major business functions, need to achieve, self-image, internal locus of control and risk taking, individuals business start ups or innovations, skills and capabilities related to business venturing and attitudes and values covering personal characteristics and style, business demands and entrepreneurial orientation. EMAQ has been statistically validated and is used to consider an individuals leaning towards entrepreneurship. Henry et. Als (2005), in their two-part paper reports the lack of uniformity in entrepreneurship education and calls for the specification of programme objectives at the outset to facilitate the assessment of learning outcomes, a mixed approach to evaluation consisting of both objective and subjective evaluation. Another issue of interest covered by Henry et. Als (2005) is the development in the words used to describe entrepreneurship education which was earlier studied by Gibb(1993b, 2000) and Gibb and Nelson(1996). They observe that there has been a shift from the use of the word enterprise(which focuses on the development of personal enterprising skills and attributes) to entrepreneurship. Gibb (2000) claims that there is confusion between the development of interpersonal and enterprising skills and warns that it is important to clarify the notions of enterprise, entrepreneurship, business skills and personal transferable skills when we develop an approach to entrepreneurship education. Kuratko(2003), in a Coleman Foundation White Paper of 2004, outlined ten emerging themes in entrepreneurship research and education at that point in time through his analysis of articles. Firstly, from Stewart et. Al. (1999) he observed that entrepreneurship and managerial domains are not mutually exclusive but overlap to a certain extent with the former being more opportunity driven and the latter more resource- and conversation-driven. Secondly, in the 1990s various types of financing such as venture capital, angel capital and other innovative financing techniques fueled another decade of entrepreneurship (Shepherd & Zacharakis, 2001 &2002). Thirdly, from the writings of Zahra, Kuratko & Jennings(1999), Kuratko, Ireland and Hornsby (2001) and Morris & Kuratko(2000) it was observed that Intrapreneurship(corporate entrepreneurship) and the need for entrepreneurial cultures have become more prominent in the late 1990s. Hitt, Ireland, Camp and Sexton (2004) have identified entrepreneurial strategies with common denominators, issues and trade-offs between entrepreneurship and strategy. Next, there was increasing interest in research on psychological aspects which can predict future success stemming from the availability of a great variety among types of entrepreneurs and the methods they used (Kickul & Grundy, 2002). Sixth, McGrath et al. (1992) state that the risks and trade-offs of an entrepreneurial career especially its demanding and stressful nature has become a popular topic for research. Seventh, women and minority entrepreneurs have increased in unprecedented numbers and appear to face different obstacles and difficulties from other types of entrepreneurs (Gundry & Welsh, 2001; Chaganti & Greene, 2002; and Greene, Hart, Gatewood, Brush & Carter, 2003). Eighth, The enormous growth of interest in entrepreneurship around the world in the past few years (Peng, 2001; and McDougall, P.P ., & Oviatt, B.M. 2003) shows that the entrepreneurial spirit is universal. Ninth, from Upton, Teal & Felan (2001) and Crisman,J.J., Chua, J.H. & Sharma, P. (2003), it was observed that the economic and social contributions of entrepreneurs, new companies, and family businesses have been shown to make immensely dispropotionate contributions to job creation, innovation and economic renewal, compared with contributions of 500 laregest companies. Lastly, Kuratko (2003) observed that entrepreneurial education has become one of the hottest topics at U.S. business and engineering schools. Citing Solomon et. Al. (2002) and Katz(2003) he stated that at the time, the number of schools teaching a new-venture and similar course has grown from two dozens to more than 1,600.

16

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

From the literature covered thus far we can infer that there are diverse views on the what and the how of entrepreneurship education. Furthermore, we have seen that as of 2004, ten major themes on the issue had been identified. This paper, through further literature survey i.e. examining selected journals and websites on entrepreneurship education and training, and using content analysis as a method will try to provide an update of the current emerging trends in entreprepreneurship education and research. 3.0 DEVELOPMENTS IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION 3.1 Research on Mixed Regions Seelig(2005) in her presentation on entrepreneurship education around four major regions USA, Europe, Asia and Latin America based on four common questions relating to the teaching of entrepreneurship i.e. is entrepreneurship teachable, who should teach entrepreneurship, how to measure the success of a program and the relationship between entrepreneurship education, made several conclusions (1) entrepreneurship education differs around the world from cultural, political, economic and historical perspectives; (2) in most regions university entrepreneurship education is viewed as a tool to stimulate economic development; (3) universities in regions with shorter history of entrepreneurship face greater challenge of building support or legitimacy and finding experienced educators and gathering needed resources; (4) in many regions entrepreneurship education is new and requires much experimentation including incubation; (5) and a global network of entrepreneurship educators is pertinent to share best practices and improve the quality of entrepreneurship education. A special report on entrepreneurship education and training by members of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) in collaboration with the Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA) published this year (2010) yielded much insights on the state of entrepreneurship education and training in some parts of the world. The study, conducted by Corduras Martinez et. al. (2010) looks at various aspects of entrepreneurship education and training. The study was conducted in 38 countries which the researchers categorised into three categories according to their level of economic development (1) Factor-Driven, (2) Efficiency-Driven and (3) Innovation-Driven. The countries classified under factor-driven are Bolivia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Colombia, Ecuador and Egypt. Under efficiency-driven are Argentina, Brazil. Chile, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Iran, Jamaica, Latvia, Macedonia, Mexico, Peru, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, Turkey and Uruguay. The innovationdriven countries studied are Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. Some interesting findings of this study are that training is likely to heighten awareness of entrepreneurship, increase self efficacy and intentions but has influence on opportunity identification and fear of failure; most (80%) of the respondents received training through formal education; and while developed economies ( in which innovation-driven countries are embedded) gained more from training in terms of increased activity, for factor- and efficiency-driven economies it is the opposite i.e. there is diminishing returns on investment in training. These imply that providing training is only effective if there are adequate infrastructure, economic stability or market and technological readiness, and thus economic and social contexts must be considered when developing entrepreneurship education and training policy. Several issues arise in these studies. Firstly, there seems to be a need to increase efforts on how to teach opportunity recognition as the study indicated that the current ways of doing things are only

17

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

effective for enhancing self-efficacy. Secondly, the study does not address the issue of the content and methodology of the entrepreneurship curricula nor which part of the curricula did the respondents found most useful. Thirdly, there is a need for further research on learning from advisors as well as on the apparent diminishing returns to increasing rates of training in factor-driven and efficiency-driven countries, and increasing returns followed by diminishing returns in innovation-driven countries as coverage of training increases in a country. Lastly, which sources of entrepreneurship training i.e. inschool, at college, formal or informal training, is most effective to ensure optimum use of resources. In a recent interview with Michael Fetters, the Vice President of Academic Affairs at Babson College, the highest ranking entrepreneurship college in the world, it was stated that the swift changes in the business environment due to globalization trend and faster technology advancement entail the need to teach students how to effective manage and operate their businesses in a diversified environment and culture and how to integrate cutting-edge technologies in curriculum(source: Babson College Website). This indicates the need to conduct external analysis when entrepreneurship courses. 3.2 China Li, Zhang and Matlay (2003) made several observations on the development of entrepreneurship education in China. Firstly, entrepreneurship education is a relatively new concept with rapid expansion of management programmes. By the turn of the century, there were 106 rural enterprise training centres and colleges nationwide with about 1.7 million participants trained between the year 19962000. Most of the programmes are short-term training programmes and tailor-made vocational education and training. In the early 1990s there had been efforts to coordinate management education and training for rural enterprises by the Ministry of Agriculture. After 1990s, entrepreneurship programmes at the undergraduate and post-graduate levels began to emerge. This period witnessed the launching of (1) the student business plan competition (considered a big event), (2) the setting up of the National Entrepreneurship Research Centre in November 2000, a Graduate Venture Park and four venture capital funds by Tsinghua University which was soon emulated by other universities, and (3) the introduction of new regulations allowing university students to suspend their degree of study for up to three years for the pursuit of business venturing activities. In addition, the Ministry of Education launched a pilot scheme in nine universities to encourage entrepreneurship education at the undergraduate level. Secondly, three models of entrepreneurship education has emerged which are 1. A Personal Quality Development Approach, (2) A Business Venture Skills Development Approach, and (3) An awareness Raising and Skills Development Approach. The key drivers for the development of entrepreneurship education are sensitivity to changes in the wider socio-economic and political environment, rapid development in rural areas and rural enterprises after, demand for management programs to ensure better management of millions of firms, either state owned or newly created collective firms, growing hype of the Internet economy especially the dot.com start-ups, growing perception of entrepreneurship education being an integral part of competence and capability in students, and of course the impressive economic growth which had released the entrepreneurial spirit and endeavour in China. Threats to the development of entrepreneurship education include environmental barriers to start and run businesses, political uncertainty, lack of access to resources and funds as well as lack of consistent policy on small business growth including entrepreneurship education. Thirdly, Li, Zhang and Matlay (2003) in a survey of 26 top business schools in China identified that in terms of modules, the emphasis was on functional management skill with strategic management,

18

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

human resource management, organizational behaviour, financial management, marketing, and accounting being the main priority, and six universities offered venture programmes and five concentrated on entrepreneurship modules. Millman, Matlay and Fan Liu(2008) in their report on the evaluation of the Know About your Business (KAB) programme initiated by the International Labour Organization and piloted at the China Youth University for Political Sciences in Beijing, shows high satisfaction (43.9% very satisfied, 52.6% satisfied and 3.5% not satisfied) among the participants, and identified a few problems such as indications of lack of market research knowledge, limited contact hours, a shortage of business plans models and difficulties in managing related team work. 3.3 Ireland In Ireland the efforts to develop entrepreneurship education became apparent in the 1980s and was considered at its infancy at the time (de Faoite et. Al, 2003). This era witnessed an increase in indigenous start-ups and small firms, inclusion of clear economic development objectives in their statutes, establishment of industrial liaison and incubation units by universities by universities and institutes of technology, formalisation of the economic roles of institutes of technology(formally regional technical college) in the 1992 RTC Act, provision of business modules and academic programmes at primary and secondary level including a young entrepreneurs model and a theoryrelated entrepreneurship modules and courses at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Amidst this scenario of development in entrepreneurship education, Ireland was viewed as one of the poorest country in the European Union inflicted with high inflation, high emigration level, slow growth rates, and alarming unemployment rates. Furthermore, there seemed to be lack of enterprise culture and tradition, limited economic opportunities for the creation of indigenous entrepreneurship and economic policies focused on inward FDIs. Thus, there is a strong incentive for the government to solve its problem by building up a strong entrepreneurial base (Steelig, 2005). The strong governmental support for entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education comes in the form of R&D and innovation funding, licensing of new technologies, providence of access to EU and ESA research support and collaboration with companies and research institutes (source: Enterprise Ireland website). The economic scenario of Ireland has led to deep interest in social entrepreneurship. In fact in 2009, the University of Dublin, Trinity College has set up its Centre for Non-profit Management in its School of Business. In an initial mapping study by Crossan, Prizeman and Breslin (2010) which aims to scrutinise the nature of social entrepreneurial enterprises in Ireland to gain better understanding of their structures, activities and entrepreneurial behaviours as distinct organizational structures on the Social Economy Continuum, an interesting observation emerged in the area of measurement of social impact which could be selected from one or more of these options internal evaluation, financial statements, social auditing, quality awards, benchmarking, social return on investment, external evaluation and research and other statistical information. 3.4 South Africa South Africas effort to stimulate and encourage public and private sector collaboration as a means to accelerate growth and enable entrepreneurs is reported to be lagging significantly behind many comparable countries (source: FNI South Africa, Mar 2010). In the study sponsored by South Africas First National Bank (FNI), the report entitled The Entrepreneurial Dialogues: State of Entrepreneurship

19

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

in South Africa , the reasons cited for this poor performance are the economic retraction in 2009 which had considerable negative impact on the entrepreneurial sector where South Africas Total Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) dropped to just 5% which is less than half of India, Brazil and Mexico; the lack of respect and recognition for the contribution of entrepreneurial activity to its GDP; the lack of response for initiatives to encourage entrepreneurial activities; the fragmented nature of programs which result in limited overall impact; the lack of support from the countrys financial and operating environment especially the regulation, policies and access to capital for entrepreneurs particularly for small business owners; and lack of women entrepreneurs in South Africa who, according to the study more often than not start business venture for lifestyle reason rather than a passion for the business, to see it grow and succeed. The study put forth some recommendations. One is the need to increase efforts to nurture entrepreneurial skills in both the formal and informal educational structures and it proposed that more stakeholders get involved to find innovative and effective ways to help improve the process. Secondly, emphasis must be placed on high-impact and high-growth entrepreneurs who can utilize the assistance program more efficiently. 3.5 Malaysia Entrepreneurship education in Malaysia mirrors that in the global scene. It is an important national agenda and is pursued relentlessly by the various stakeholders. At the tertiary level, entrepreneurship education is offered at the diploma, graduate and post graduate levels. As at August, 2010 a survey in the Internet reveals that there thirty-five institutions of higher learning offer programs in entrepreneurship. Content analysis of the programs reveal the programs offered are either entrepreneurship alone or blended with other disciplines or areas. Universiti Utara Malaysia deserves to be applauded for its initiatives to lead in the area of entrepreneurship education in Malaysia by offering the most number of specializations for all levels of degrees (bachelor, masters and PhD) where students can choose to specialize in Benchmarking, International Business, Inventory management, Management of Innovation, Management of Research & Development, Project Management, Quality Management, Supply Chain Management, Technology Assessment, Technology Forecasting, Technology Policy and Planning, Technology Strategy and Technology Transfer. Universiti Putra Malaysia, on the hand, has blended entrepreneurship with vocational and technical education. Besides its BBA (Hons) in Entrepreneurship, Multimedia University also offers specialisation in Media Innovation and Entrepreneurship and Financial Engineering(with an entrepreneurial twist to it). Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) offers Bachelor of Education with specialisation in Entrepreneurship. Universiti Kuala Lumpur is the only university to offer Bachelor in Business Technology with specialisation in computer entrepreneurial management. The other programmes offered are quite straight forward. Nonetheless, the trend of blended or hybrid programmes seem to be becoming more prevalent. Aside from the increasing number of programs offered at the tertiary level, there is also a growing interest in research on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education in Malaysia. Entrepreneurship is greatly emphasized and viewed as a major thrust for economic development as outlined in the Malaysia plans and the New Economic Model policy. This stress on entrepreneurship as an engine of growth has led to increase in interest in and research on the area of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education. Cheng and Chan (2004) focuses on the development of entrepreneurship education in terms of student knowledge regarding entrepreneurship, factors influencing students decisions to become entrepreneurs, and motives for establishing a new venture. Their study shows that

20

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

the respondents knowledge of entrepreneurship and motivation to become entrepreneurs after graduation is low and that there is a need to identify effective teaching methods of entrepreneurship. A study on how polytechnics in Malaysia develop entrepreneurship curriculum by Ismail (2009) concluded that the current practice is ineffective and a new approach is needed. The factors contributing to the ineffectiveness were attributed by the researcher to shortage of lecturers and teaching methods. Another study by Buang, Halim and Mohd Meerah (2009) on entrepreneurial science thinking links entrepreneurship with Science Education indicating the applicability of entrepreneurship education in other subject areas.Ismail, Abdullah and Othmans (2010) research on the acceptance of the entrepreneurship culture module a year after it was launched by the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia shows a significant difference between male and female graduates towards various aspects concerning the field of entrepreneurship , with higher mean value among female undergraduates compared to male undergraduates. Baharuddin and Arokiasamy (2010) examine how to initiate cyber entrepreneur in higher education in Malaysia but did not come with conclusive or robust action plans or model. Like Ireland, Malaysia also stresses the application of technology in its pursuit of entrepreneurship as a growth engine. In fact Malaysias ranking of 28th out of 104(source: Legatum Prosperity Index 2009) economies is said to be boosted by its flourishing high-tech industry which constitutes more than half of total exports and capitalization of its innovations, indicated by its high level of royalty receipts. Malaysia is also ranked by World Bank as 23rd out of 183 countries in the ease of doing business(source: World Bank Report 2009). Warisan Globals recent survey on Malaysian entrepreneurial landscape shows that although there are much support in the forms of policies and funding, the entrepreneurial impact has yet to be maximized as some of the initiatives create a dependent mentality which affects the hunger in entrepreneurs (Dhakshinamoorthy, CEO of Warisan Global), and the universities are still lagging in producing highly competent graduates in both technical and non-technical fields and it is the perception of many respondents in the survey that the Malaysian education system has not contributed effectively to the creation of a competitive workforce (source: Warisan Global). The observation has not failed on deaf ears as the Malaysian government is continuously monitoring the issues and has outlined many initiatives to promote and foster entrepreneurship including prioritizing education and skills development, restructuring its funding policies to reduce dependent mentality, and introducing a Competition Act to liberalize the economy and prevent monopolistic and anti-competitive actions by large corporation. These moves have strong implications for the landscape of entrepreneurship education in the country and must be considered in course design. 4.0 CONCLUSION The literature survey of updates on the development of entrepreneurship education has revealed a few emerging trends and challenges. Generally, the emerging trends and challenges in entrepreneurship run parallel in the countries analysed. For instance, firstly, all the countries place high priority on entrepreneurship as an engine of growth and thus pursue policies deemed to promote entrepreneurial activities especially through education and training. In other words, the rationale for introducing and encouraging entrepreneurship education is based on the following line of thoughts: Firstly, it is believed (the assumption) that entrepreneurship promotes economic growth. In fact, some claim that entrepreneurship is critical to sustain the economy and to achieve or maintain competitiveness (Matlay, 2005).

21

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

Secondly, to encourage entrepreneurial ventures, we must produce more entrepreneurs i.e. the more entrepreneurs we have, the more entrepreneurial activities will take place. Thirdly, entrepreneurship education is necessary to create a greater pool of entrepreneurs who will embark on entrepreneurial activities and help enhance economic growth. Secondly, it appears that all regions do not dispute the importance of entrepreneurship education to economic growth. This is evidenced from the researches discussed in this paper where various studies have been undertaken to gain understanding of myriad issues surrounding entrepreneurship to answer the what, where, how , why, when and with which or whom of the topic. The what revolves around what to teach i.e. content and skills; the where revolves around the levels best for introducing entrepreneurship education i.e. at the primary, secondary or tertiary level; the how revolves around methodologies and curricula innovation to determine what works best in each context and group this seems to be a particularly popular research topic and yet not much conclusive findings have been recorded in this area. Nevertheless, suffice to mention that the observation on the universality of the entrepreneurial spirit by Kuratko(2004) has probably changed from an emerging to a growing issue as governments around the world place greater significance on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education. Another emerging theme is researching on entrepreneurship based on segments i.e. classifying and categorising countries and researching how each entrepreneurial issue is diifferent, for example undertaking comparative research on entrepreneurship as is seen in the works of Corduras Martinez et. al. (2010).It is also observed that there is a growing trend of emphasizing external analysis when designing entreprepreneurship programs. Growing awareness to address the external environment and its impact on entrepreneurship indicates that there might be greater intersection between the fields of entrepreneurship and strategic management. Another observation is the focus given to utilizing various technologies as enablers for entrepreneurship and in line with this the need to incorporate application of technologies in the curriculum. In terms of contents, the growing awareness and interest on social entrepreneurism is foreseen to create a demand for courses on the topic, perhaps elevating Social Entrepreneurship as compulsory major subject for most tertiary level programs. Both these developments are in line with the current trend in both the public and private sectors where there is deep concern over social and environmental issues as evidenced from the importance placed on CSR, green concepts and effective corporate governance. Yet another observation is the departure from tied entrepreneurship to social entrepreneurship i.e. the likes of tied entrepreneurship is now perceived as a deterrent to the growth of entrepreneurship, if improperly managed as in the case of Malaysia where its new economic model took a serious effort to control the prevalence of dependent mentality. Thus, if in 2004 Kuratko, talked about the emergence of intrapreneurship and Kandola (2002) talked about tied entrepreneurship the current trend seems to be on social entrepreneurship and cyberpreneurship. In Malaysia, we see a trend of offering blended or hybrid programs, signaling the fact that entrepreneurship is increasingly being applied to other areas of specialization. This seems to be parallel to the situation in the 1980s when management courses began to infringe on the territories of other areas of specialization where taking the MBA became a popular choice for graduates of other fields to enable them to perform effectively in a managerial and organizational setting. In other words the

22

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

concepts and application of entrepreneurship is slowly permeating the boundaries of other fields of study. Will entrepreneurship education play a major role to provide a bridge for graduates of other specializations to cross over to better economic opportunities. It is not within the scope of this paper to answer this question. This cursory survey used to trace the developments of entrepreneurship education in a few countries around the world has only been able to trace some trends and challenges in the design and implementation of entrepreneurship education. More research is needed to address the issues highlighted in this study.

REFERENCES Baharuddin, M.N. & Ariokiasamy,L. (2010). Initiating Cyber Entrepreneur in Higher Education in Malaysia. Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT 2010. Buang, N.A. , Halim, Lilia, Mohd Meerah, T.S. (2009.) Understanding the Thinking of Scientists Entrepreneurs: Implications for Science Education in Malaysia. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(2):3-11. Chaganti, R. & Greene, P.G. (2002.) Who are ethinic entrepreneurs? A study of entrepreneur ethnic involvement and business characteristics. Journal of Small Business Management 40(2): 126-143. Charisma,J.J., Chua, J.H. & Sharma, P. (2003). Current trends and future directions in family business management studies: Toward a theory of the family firm. Coleman White Paper Series, www.usasbe.org. Cheng, M.Y.&Chan,C. Entrepreneurship Education in www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/2004/paper112.pdf (downloaded on 31 Jul 2010) Malaysia.

Collins,L., Hannon,P.D., and Smith,A. (2004). Enacting entrepreneurial intent : the gaps between student needs and higher education capability. Education+Training, 46 (8/9) : 454-463. Corduras Martinez, A. Levie, J. Kelley, D.J. Saemundsson, R.J. and Schott, T. (2010). A Global Perpective on Entrepreneurship Education and Training, GERA. Craig,J.B.L. and Johnson,D. (2006). Establishing individual differences related to opportunity alertness and innovation dependent on academic-career training. Journal of Management Development, 25(1) :28-39. Crossan,D., Prizeman,G. and Breslin, E. (2010). Mapping Social Entrepreneurship in Ireland. The Initiative of Social Entrepreneurship (Preliminary Findings). Centre for Non-Profit Management School of Business, University of Dublin, Trinity College. Dana,L.P. (2001). The Education and Training of Entrepreneurship in Asia. Education +Training. 43(8/9) : 405-415. Deamer,I. and Earle,L.(2004). Searching for Entrepreneurship. Industrial and Commercial Training. 36 (3): 99-103.

23

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

De Faoite,D. Henry,C., Johnson,K. and Sijd, P. (2003). Education and Training for entrepreneurs : a consideration of perspectives in Ireland and the Netherlands. Education + Training 45 (8/9) : 430-438. Drucker,P.F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York, Harper & Row. Drucker, P.F. (1994).. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles, Heinemann, London. Gibb, A.A. (1993). The enterprise culture and education, understanding enterprise education and its links with small business , entrepreneurship and wider educational goals. International Small Business Journal. 11 (3): 11-34. Gibb, A.A. (1996). Entrepreneurship and small business management: can we afford to neglect them in the twenty-first century business school? British Journal of Management. 7 (4): 309-21. Gibb, A.A. (2000) In pursuit of a new enterprise and entrepreneurship paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management. 4 (3): 233-69. Greene,P.G., Hart,M.M., Gatewood,E.J., C.G., & Carter, N.M. (2003). Women entrepreneurships: Moving front and center: an overview of research and theory. Coleman White Paper Series, www.usasbe.org. Grundy,L.K. & Welsh,H.P. (2001). The ambitious entrepreneur: High growth strategies of women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing,3.:109-122. Henry, C., Hill,F. and Leitch, C. (200) Entrepreneurship education and Training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I . Education + Training 47 (2) : 98-111. Henry, C., Hill,F. and Leitch, C. (2005) Entrepreneurship education and Training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part II . Education + Training 47 (3) : 158-169. Hitt,M.A. Ireland, R.D., Camp,S.M., & Sexton,D.L.(2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal (special issue): 22(6): 479-492. Hynes,B. (1996). Entrepreneurship education and Training introducing entrepreneurship into nonbusiness disciplines. Journal of European Industrial Training 20(8): 10-17. Ibrahim, A.B., and K. Soufani. (2002). Entrepreneurship and Training in Canada : A Critical Assessment. Education + Training 44 (8/9) : 421-430. Ismail,A. Abdullah, A.G.K., Othman, A.T. (2010). Acceptance of entrepreneurship culture module at the Malaysian Institutes of Higher Learning : A gender Perspective. Research Journal of International studies, Issue 15- august 2010. Ismail, M.Z.. (2009). Developing Entrepreneurship Curriculum in Tertiary Eduiaction: a study of Polytechnics, Ministry of Education, Malaysia. Paper presented at USASBE 2009. Katz,J.A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing 18(2): 283-300. Kickul,J. & Gundry,L.K. (2002). prospecting for strategic advantage: the proactive entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation. Journal of Small Business Management 40(2): 85-97.

24

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

Kuratko (2003). Entrepreneurship Education: Emerging trends and challenges for the 21st century. Coleman White Paper Series, www.usasbe.org. Kuratko,D.F., Ireland, R.D. & Hornsby,J.S. (2001). Improving firm performance through entrepreneurial actions: acordia corporate entrepreneurship startegy. Academy of Management executive 15(4):60-71. Kuratko, D.F. & Hodgetts, R.M. (2004). Entrepreneurship: theory, Process, Practice. (Mason,OH: SouthWestern). Li, Jun, Yuli Zhang, and Harry Matlay.(2003). Entrepreneurship Education in China. Education + Training 45 (8/9) : 495-505. Matlay,H. (2005). Researching entrepreneurship and education : Part 1 :what is entrepreneurship and does it matter ?. Education + Training 47 (8/9) : 665-677. McDougall,P.P. & Oviatt, B.M. (2003). Some fundamental issues in international entrepreneurship. Coleman White Paper Series, www.usasbe.org. Millman. C., Harry Matlay and Fan Liu. (2008). "Entrepreneurship education in China: a case study approach", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 Iss: 4, pp.802 815. Mitchell,R.K. & Chesteen,S.A. (1995). Enhancing entrepreneurial expertise: Experiential pedagogy and the new venture expert script. Simulation and Gaming, 26(3):288-306. Morris,M.H. & Kuratko, D.F. (2002). Corporate Entrepreneurship. (Mason,OH: South-Western). Nieman,G. (2001). Training entrepreneurs and small business enterprises in South Africa: a situational analysis. Education + Training 43 (8/9) : 445-450. Peng,M.W. (2001). How entrepreneurs create wealth in transition economies. Management Executive 15(1): 95-110. Academy of

Seelig, T.L. (2005). Entrepreneurship Education Around the World. Paper presented at REE USA 2005, Standford University, Oct. 26. 2005. Shepherd,D.A. & Zacharakis,A. (2001). Speed to initial public offering of VC-backed companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25(3):59-69. Shepherd,D.A. & Zacharakis,A. (2002). Venture capitalists expertise: a call for research into decision aids and cognitive feedback. Journal of Business Venturing 17(1): 1-20. Solomon, G.t., Duffy,S. Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1): 6586. Stewart, W.H., Watson, W.E, Carland, J.C. & Carland, J.W. (1999). A productivity for entrepreneurship: a comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners and corporate managers. Journal of Business Venturing (february): 189-214. Upton,N. Teal, E.J. & felan,J.T. (2001). Strategic and business planning practices of fast-growing family firms. Journal of Small Business Management 39 (4): 60-72.

25

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

JANUARY 2011. VOLUME 1. NUMBER 1

Walter, Sascha, and Dirk Dohse. (2009). The Interplay Between Entrepreneurship Education and Regional Knowledge Knowledge Potential in Forming Entrepreneurial Intentions.Kiel, Germany : Kiel Institute for the World Economy, no. 1549. World Economic Forum, (2009). Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs : Unlocking Entrepreneurial Capabilities to Meet the Global Challenges of the 21st Century : A Report of the Global Education Initiative. Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Zahra,S.A. Kuratko,D.F. & Jennings, D.F. (1999).Corporate entrepreneurship and wealth creation : Contemporary and emerging perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24(2): 5-9. https://www.fnb.co.za/news/archive/2010/20100330state.html (downloaded 18 Aug 2010) Babson College website FNI South Africa Website GEM Website Warisan Global Website