The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm

Integrating education for

entrepreneurship in multiple
faculties in half-the-time to
enhance graduate
entrepreneurship

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
503

Fernando Lourenco
Institute for Tourism Studies, Macau, China and Department of Management,
Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, UK, and

Tony G. Taylor and David W. Taylor

Department of Management,
Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, UK
Abstract
Purpose This paper seeks to highlight the role of entrepreneurship education in encouraging the
growth of graduate entrepreneurship in the UK to help overcome the over-supply of university
graduates in a very difficult employment market. This paper aims to discuss the design principle for
entrepreneurship education that facilitates graduate entrepreneurship, and the design methodology
that allows multi-faculty collaboration in the provision of entrepreneurship programmes.
Design/methodology/approach This paper begins with the conceptualisation of design
principles and frameworks based on current concepts found in the literature, followed by
practitioner-based reflection to shed insights into the process of developing entrepreneurship
education in higher education institutions (HEIs).
Findings The authors have developed the 30/70 methodology to guide the future design of
entrepreneurship education, and the 80/20 methodology to support cross-faculty entrepreneurship
programmes to serve non-business students. Factors that impede or support academic
entrepreneurship and effective integration of entrepreneurship programmes in HEIs are discussed.
Originality/value This paper shares the authors experiences, and their unique design principles
and methodology to support the development of education for entrepreneurship.
Keywords Entrepreneurship education, Education for entrepreneurship, Unemployment,
Graduate entrepreneurship, Academic entrepreneurship, Cross-faculty collaboration,
Graduate employability, Entrepreneurialism, Education
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
The financial crisis of 2007-2009 originating in the USA triggered a global recession
affecting many countries and businesses across the world. Although the UK is
showing signs of recovery, economic growth forecasts have been low and full recovery
is expected to take many years (Lane, 2010). Indeed, according to the National Institute
for Economic and Social Research (2012a, b) the UK economy technically entered a
double-dip recession in the first quarter of 2012, with growth for the year originally
anticipated to be close to zero, with later forecasts indicating a contraction in the

Journal of Small Business and

Enterprise Development
Vol. 20 No. 3, 2013
pp. 503-525
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1462-6004
DOI 10.1108/JSBED-04-2013-0052

JSBED
20,3

504

economy this year and 1 per cent growth in 2013. The governments steep cuts in
public spending over the next five years is exacerbating the situation (Lane, 2010),
resulting in massive cuts in public sector jobs and rises in unemployment. The Office
for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasted 490,000 job losses by 2015 and 610,000 by
2016 (BBC, 2010a). A controversial report published by the Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development (CIPD) correctly predicted that the impact of the
governments spending cuts and the rise in VAT to 20 per cent in January 2011 would
result in a loss of many public sector jobs and private sector jobs (BBC, 2010b;
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2010). This news added further
uncertainty to individuals and businesses across the UK.
In August 2012, there was a small improvement in the unemployment level in the
UK, but there were still 2.53 million out of work (Office for National Statistics, 2012).
Whilst there is expected to be a modest rise of 4.6 per cent in graduate recruitment in
the UK in 2012 (High Fliers Research, 2012), there will still be a significant shortfall of
graduate jobs. These statistics cast a shadow over university students entering the
jobs market (762,540 graduates in 2010/2011; 2.5 million engaging in higher education)
(Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2012). Entrepreneurship education is an
important intervention to tackle the recent economic downturn and reduce the level of
unemployment (Matlay, 2011). Higher education institutions (HEIs) play an important
role in helping students make the transition to being successful entrepreneurs who
create their own jobs and employment opportunities for others (Hannon, 2007;
Herrmann et al., 2008; Gibb et al., 2009; Volkmann et al., 2009; Gibb, 2010).
Two areas will be discussed in this paper:
(1) design principles for entrepreneurship education to facilitate graduate
entrepreneurship; and
(2) design methodology that allows multi-faculty collaboration in the provision of
entrepreneurship programmes.
In order to discuss these two areas, this paper will highlight a series of three
entrepreneurship units developed by a UK higher education institution to facilitate
graduate entrepreneurship and develop graduates with enterprising skills, and to aid
collaboration between different faculties in order to promote entrepreneurship
programmes to non-business students.
Following on from the introduction, the issue of unemployment is further explored
and the need to promote entrepreneurship education to enhance graduate
entrepreneurship is discussed. Then the design and methodology adopted for our
entrepreneurship education unit and multi-faculty collaboration are described. This is
followed by a discussion of the process of integrating such units into the business
school and non-business faculties. Our experiences of, and strategies for,
commercialisation are reviewed in light of the academic entrepreneurship literature.
We conclude by highlighting a number of best practices to aid educators who are
interested in adopting similar strategies to promote graduate entrepreneurship.
The graduates, unemployment and entrepreneurship education
In 1965, there were approximately 30,000 graduates entering the UK labour market
(Nabi et al., 2006). In 2010/2011 the number of graduates (undergraduate and
post-graduate) reached 762,540 in the UK (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2012).

This growth is reflected in recent reports that state that the number of individuals
engaging in higher education grew to 2.5 million in 2011-2012 (Higher Education
Statistics Agency, 2012). This year the number of University applications reduced by 8
per cent but this follows on from a particularly strong rise of 12 per cent the previous
year (UCAS, 2012). This at a time when the overall jobs market for graduates is still
very uncertain (Nabi et al., 2006; Matlay and Carey, 2007) leaving graduates facing
difficult times (Lexmond and Bradley, 2010; Matlay, 2011).
In 2012, the worldwide recession increased global unemployment to over 200
million, 2.53 million in the UK (International Labour Organization, 2012; Office for
National Statistics, 2012). There has been a small rise of 6.4 per cent in graduate jobs in
the UK, following falls of 17.8 per cent and 6.7 per cent in the previous two years.
However, the jobs market for graduates is still very competitive with new graduates
entering the jobs market and one in three job applicants for graduate positions coming
from the previous years graduate cohort (High Fliers Research, 2012). A study of 502
SMEs found that recruitment of graduates was low in the last 12 months and their
intention to recruit was low for the next 12 months (Kewin et al., 2010). A report
published in 2007 indicated that almost a quarter of graduates were still struggling to
get full-time employment three and a half years after their graduation (Higher
Education Statistics Agency, 2007). The picture is even gloomier as further rises in
unemployment over the next two years are forecast (Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development, 2010). Recovery of the private sector will be offset by the loss of
600,000 public sector jobs over the next five years (Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development, 2010). As noted in Lexmond and Bradley (2010, p. 18), the combination
of a recessionary graduate job market, increasing numbers entering higher education
and a potential oversupply of graduates, top-up fees and spiralling student debt, has
led to recent graduates being described as generation crunch.
Traditionally, higher education institutions (HEIs) play the role of educating and
preparing individuals to become employees (Fletcher, 1999; Kirby, 2004; Nurmi and
Paasio, 2007). Self-employment or entrepreneurship has not been traditionally viewed
as the career choice for graduates (Hartshorn and Hannon, 2005). However, this
traditional role needs to be reformed because the world is changing (Kirby, 2004). In the
current economic climate with unemployment on the increase, graduate
entrepreneurship is ever more important (Draycott and Rae, 2011; Matlay, 2011).
HEIs play an important role in the development of the necessary behaviours and skills
that would enable graduates to create their own job (business start-up) or become an
effective job seeker (Lewis, 2005).
The Kauffman Foundation noted that new business start-up is crucial to the
renewal and restructuring on the economy (National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, 2009a). One of their studies indicated that over half of Americas
Fortune 500 companies were formed during an economic downturn. This study
provides a silver lining to the dark cloud that is currently hanging over the economy
and shows that new businesses could lift [. . .] out of a recession (National Council for
Graduate Entrepreneurship, 2009a). During the 2001-2002 recession in the UK there
was an increase in business start-ups (National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, 2009a). The people that are likely to take the risk of starting their
own business are not the employed, but rather it is the unemployed (National Council

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
505

JSBED
20,3

506

for Graduate Entrepreneurship, 2009a). This emphasises the importance of promoting

and supporting entrepreneurship to tackle unemployment in the UK (Rae, 2010).
Since the 1970s, entrepreneurship education has become a critical intervention to
enhance enterprise culture and support entrepreneurship (Sexton and Bowman, 1984).
This is in part down to an increased interest among graduates about entrepreneurial
careers (Curran and Blackburn, 1989; Robertson et al., 2004; Nabi et al., 2006), and an
increased emphasis in government for graduate entrepreneurship, has led to
entrepreneurship climbing up the political agenda (Matlay, 2006; Draycott and Rae,
2011; Matlay, 2011). As a consequence, HEIs are beginning to respond to this growing
interest in entrepreneurship (Matlay, 2010).
The literature highlights the importance of promoting entrepreneurial skills among
graduates (Gibb et al., 2009; Draycott and Rae, 2011; Lourenco and Jayawarna, 2011).
Gibb (1993, 2002) argued that entrepreneurs need more than business start-up,
management skills and core business knowledge. They need a set of enterprising skills
to support their entrepreneurial venture, and deal with the fast-changing business
environment. As highlighted in recent reports, the development of an entrepreneurial
mindset and/or enterprising skills is also on the agenda for developing graduates in
order to enhance their employability (Herrmann et al., 2008; Gibb et al., 2009; Volkmann
et al., 2009; Gibb, 2010). It is argued that employers are looking for graduates equipped
with skills that will enable them to act in enterprising ways so they can deal effectively
with a difficult business environment, and a personal life that is increasingly full of
uncertainties and complexities (Gibb et al., 2009). Thus, entrepreneurship education
should be an important element in the new curriculum for HEIs (Matlay, 2006; Draycott
and Rae, 2011; Matlay, 2011). Entrepreneurship education is now being viewed as an
important contributor to facilitate graduates moving into self-employment as well as
enhancing their employability to work within a volatile, complex and uncertain
business environment.
Hannons (2007) study indicated that only 7 per cent of the overall student
population in the UK were engaged in an enterprise or entrepreneurship programme,
by 2010 this figure had grown to 16 per cent (National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, 2010). Primarily provision has been delivered by business schools
(McKeown et al., 2006; Hannon, 2007; Matlay and Carey, 2007; National Council for
Graduate Entrepreneurship, 2010). However, if HEIs are seeking to increase the overall
level of students engaged in enterprise then bringing other faculties on board is a
necessity (Hartshorn and Hannon, 2005). Non-business students represent around 86
per cent of the overall student population in the UK (Higher Education Statistics
Agency, 2011). This indicates opportunities for collaborative development between
faculties. As noted in Gibb et al. (2009), entrepreneurship is an intra-disciplinary
concept intrinsic to the development of all students. However, it has been argued that
business schools provide one-size-fits-all education products that are not relevant to all
students across different disciplines (Gibb, 2002; Collins et al., 2004). Therefore, this
indicates a critical issue that may affect effective collaboration between faculties.
The design of the Ideas, Creativity and Entrepreneurship units (ICE)
At our higher education institution, we acknowledge the need to promote graduate
entrepreneurship and develop enterprising individuals (Lourenco and Jayawarna,
2011). Entrepreneurship units have been developed to enable our students to identify

opportunities around which they can potentially create their own job whilst at the same
time enhancing their employability by being more enterprising (Draycott and Rae,
2011; Matlay, 2011). In 2007, we began our development of a three-year series of units
for entrepreneurship called Ideas, Creativity and Entrepreneurship (ICE). These units
aim to promote graduate entrepreneurship and improve graduate employability.
The literature noted that entrepreneurship education can be categorised into two
forms:
(1) education about entrepreneurship; and
(2) education for entrepreneurship.
Education about entrepreneurship is descriptive and it only provides students with the
knowledge about entrepreneurship. This type of education has been criticised for its use
of traditional pedagogical approaches that over-emphasise theory and treat functional
knowledge as an end rather than a means, such an approach restrains the
development of entrepreneurial skills, capabilities and attributes (Gibb, 1987a, 1993,
2010). Education for entrepreneurship is to support and facilitate students to become
entrepreneurial and/or to become an entrepreneur (Laukkanen, 2000). This form of
education adopts a more constructive learning pedagogy whereby learning is
constructed by learners through the process of doing (Gibb, 1987a, 1993; Smith et al.,
2006; Gibb, 2010). In the UK, Hannons (2007) review of entrepreneurship education
indicated that there is an emphasis on education about entrepreneurship (theoretical and
content driven courses), moderate provision of enterprise education (helping individuals
to become entrepreneurial), and there is a lack of education for entrepreneurship (helping
individuals to become entrepreneurs). To promote graduate entrepreneurship it is
particularly important to develop education for entrepreneurship, allowing students to
experience different stages within the entrepreneurship process (Gibb, 1987a; Plaschka
and Welsch, 1990), and develop enterprising attributes, skills and behaviours relevant to
each stage (Gibb, 1987a, b, 1993; Gibb et al., 2009). Therefore, education for
entrepreneurship is the preferred approach to support graduate entrepreneurship and to
promote the development of enterprising individuals.
The studies of Co and Mitchell (2006) and Lourenco and Jones (2006) noted different
types of pedagogical methods used in entrepreneurship education. However, Lourenco
and Jones (2006) argue that it is not the choice between traditional and enterprising
approaches which is important in entrepreneurship education. Rather, what matters is
how we integrate the functionalities offered by both approaches. It is important to use
instructive approaches (traditional methods) to introduce concepts and tools to
students, use constructive approaches (enterprising methods) to allow students to learn
by doing and use stimulants such as guest speakers and case studies, so linking
learning content to real world situations. The use of multiple pedagogical approaches
is a key design principle to guide the development of entrepreneurship education.
The ICE units adopt a constructivist methodology to teaching and are guided by the
use of multiple pedagogical approaches as guiding design principles. We have
developed a 30/70 session structure methodology (two-hour session). This structure
allocates 30 per cent of each training session for tutors to deliver training material
introducing concepts and tools, delivering case studies to create learning scenarios,
explaining assignments, and understanding in-class activities. The remaining 70 per
cent is designed to allow students to learn by doing through in-class activities. In order

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
507

JSBED
20,3

508

to support the 30/70 session structure design, three major pedagogical elements are
used (Table I). As depicted in Figure 1, each pedagogical approach is used in
combination to allow students to learn core concepts that are linked to real-world
scenarios and to learn by doing through activities and assessments. This methodology
encourages students engagement in the process of learning.
Recent development of entrepreneurship theories has focused on opportunity and
cognitive aspects (Gregoire et al., 2006). The field of entrepreneurship is defined as the
scholarly examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create
future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited (Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000, p. 218). Ardichvili et al. (2003) argued similarly but replaced the
term opportunity discovery with opportunity recognition. They argue that an
opportunity is recognised via three distinct processes:
(1) sensing or perceiving market needs and/or underemployed resources (perception);
(2) recognising or discovering a fit between particular market needs and
specified resources (discovery); and
(3) creating a new fit between heretofore separate needs and resources in the
form of a business concept (creation) (Ardichvili et al., 2003, pp. 109-10).
These three processes require an individual to actively shape their initial ideas into
business concepts and business models. Within this development process,
opportunities are evaluated and screened through a feasibility analysis to a
full-blown business plan. In this process, opportunities will pass through a series of
screening gates where ideas are assessed, revised or aborted. Subsequently, the
development process may lead to the formation of business enterprise to exploit
opportunity. Opportunity development is crucial as the recognition of opportunity in
itself cannot become a business (Ardichvili et al., 2003).
In essence, the literature indicates two building blocks to influence the development
of our conceptual framework:
(1) stages of entrepreneurial opportunity (recognition, evaluation, formation and
exploitation); and
(2) development of enterprising behaviours, skills and attributes in relation to each
stage within the entrepreneurial process.

Table I.
Pedagogy and learning
mode
Figure 1.
Session format (30 per cent
input of academic staffs
and entrepreneurs and 70
per cent of the time is for
students to practise and
learn by doing)

Pedagogy

Mode of learning

Mini-lecture: introduction of theory, tool, concept or method

Case, scenario or a story
Mini-activity

Instructed to learners
Stimulus: creating learning scenario
Constructed: learn by doing

The model depicted in Figure 2 reflects these two building blocks.

This education for entrepreneurship framework indicates that the entrepreneurial
process has four stages. The initial stage relates to the identification, recognition and
creation of ideas and opportunities. The second stage relates to selection, validation
and evaluation of opportunities. The third stage relates to development, finalisation
and operationalisation of opportunities. The final stage relates to the exploitation of
opportunities and post start-up aspects. The model depicted in Figure 2 incorporates
the idea that throughout the entrepreneurial process, it is particularly important to
develop enterprising behaviours, attributes and skills according to each stage within
the process (from awareness building to post-start-up phase). As a whole, the initial
stage of the entrepreneurial process goes through a divergent phase to develop a wide
variety of ideas and subsequently ideas are shaped into business concepts, business
models, business plans and business start-ups via the opportunity development
process (Ardichvili et al., 2003). This can be linked to the divergence and convergence
process of innovation model as described in Stamm (2003).
In 2007, the model described above, provided a framework to guide the design of a
three-year series of units called Ideas, Creativity and Entrepreneurship (ICE) aiming to:
.
develop enterprising behaviours, attributes and skills;
.
enhance career perspective and choices;
.
facilitate the development of a business ideas portfolio;
.
guide and facilitate students to go through the whole entrepreneurial process;
and
.
provide students with a playful and constructive environment where tools can be
applied, and information and projects introduced (Table II).

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
509

ICE in year 1 is designed to build an awareness of entrepreneurial career paths, support

the opportunity recognition process, and develop enterprising behaviours, attributes
and skills, for example creative thinking, communication, problem solving, decision
taking, autonomous, opportunity seeking and self-confident. Tools and techniques are
introduced to students through workshops to allow them to learn by doing to support
the process of recognising opportunities and opportunity development.
In year 2 ICE is designed to support the process of evaluation and operationalisation
of opportunities. Additionally, it aims to develop skills such as team working,

Figure 2.
Framework for Ideas,
Creativity and
Entrepreneurship unit

JSBED
20,3

510

Table II.
Pedagogies and activities

Level

Pedagogies

Year 1

Creativity activities; problem-based activities; scenarios activities; role-play

activities; self-assessment tools; video case studies; animations, stories,
analogies, metaphors and clips from the BBCs Dragons Den to reflect
theories; presentations; preparation and presentation of portfolio

Year 2

Same as Year 1 plus feasibility analysis and writing business plan

Year 3

Registering and working at the incubation centre with real nascent

entrepreneurs; preparing a functional business plan; business launch event;
Dragons Den-style business pitch (with real business dragons); business
start-up and management; produce a final business plan and report; online
reflective learning log (covering multiple learning aspects); business
mentors to facilitate the process

Non-curricular activities For example: student enterprise society, Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE)
society, working with Innospace business incubator, working with the our
universitys Enterprise Champion, National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurs (NCGE), Shell Livewire, Shell Technology Enterprise
Programme, Make your Mark initiatives, Young Enterprise, Innoflux,
Flux500, Enterprise Days in schools, Innospace Business Planning
Competition, Xing Business Game, etc.

negotiations, social networking, leadership, communication, critical thinking and

assessment, problem solving, planning, decision taking, autonomous, commitment to
make things happen, achievement orientation, empathy and self-confidence. As with
ICE on year 1, tools and techniques are introduced to students through workshops to
allow them to learn by doing to support the process of screening and validating
business opportunities (feasibility analysis), and developing a business plan.
Techniques are integrated into every session to encourage creativity (to support the
divergence process) and logical thinking (to support the convergence process), and to
allow a gradual development of enterprising behaviours (Lourenco and Jayawarna,
2011).
ICE in year 3 is designed to facilitate the business formation and opportunity
exploitation process. Students are required to operationalise their business opportunity
by forming and running their business enterprise for six months. This aims to allow
students to experience the process of exploiting business opportunity and
understanding the life-world of the entrepreneur. In addition, this aims to develop
enterprising behaviours, attributes and skills that can only be achieved via starting
and running a real business venture, for example being flexible in responding to
challenges, coping with and enjoying uncertainty, tolerance to risk, taking risk actions
in uncertain environments, and being versatile and dynamic. During this period,
students are invited to work in our universitys business incubator, called Innospace.
Therefore, students are treated as nascent entrepreneurs whom will be working around
like-minded individuals who are going through a similar process.
Pittaway et al. (2009) undertook a systematic review of the entrepreneurship
literature and identified that assessment of practice was a gap in the field. These and
other authors go on to argue that it is important be innovative in the assessment of
practice for entrepreneurship education, due to the fact that many learning outcomes

relate to changing values, attitudes, skills, behaviour, motivation and competencies

(Pittaway et al., 2009; Draycott and Rae, 2011). Therefore, traditional methods such as
essays, exams and reports do not have much of a role when the learning outcomes are
behavioural or attitudinal (Pittaway et al., 2009, p. 79). As the emphasis of our
education for entrepreneurship unit is on the actions of students and development of
skills, we have followed the cognitive theory of learning and constructivist learning
theory to develop our assessment strategies.
According to the cognitive theories, learning is a dynamic, active, constructive and
goal-orientated process (Wittrock, 1978; Shuell, 1981, 1986; Wittrock, 1986; Smith et al.,
2006). Learning is enhanced as students engage in the construction of knowledge by
acquiring, generating, analysing, manipulating and structuring information (Alavi,
1994, p. 161). Learners are actively involved in reorganising and constructing existing
and new knowledge during the learning process (Shuell, 1986; Alavi et al., 2002). There
are three major elements in this cognitive process:
(1) our existing knowledge set;
(2) the process of acquiring new information and the interplay between existing
knowledge; and
(3) new information to form new knowledge (Kolb, 1984).
Learning relates to the acquisition of knowledge, change in mental models, and
knowledge structures (Greeno, 1974). Learning occurs when expectations, perceptions,
beliefs or attitudes change as influenced by their new mental models and knowledge
structures (Harlow, 1972; Shuell, 1981). Therefore, the process of learning can only be
activated when students engage in process of knowledge construction.
In order to assess students, our aim is to ensure that students engage in the process
of doing. This assumes that by doing, students will:
(1) cognitively acquire, generate, analyse, manipulate and structure information;
(2) change their mental models and knowledge structures; and
(3) potentially influence their expectations, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes or
behaviours (Kolb, 1984).
Therefore, we have adopted assessment strategies to monitor the process of doing
through the use of assignments (developing posters, presentations, reports and
business plan) and portfolio (presentation of outcomes derived from the in-class
activities and assignments). These approaches allow us to assess engagement and
encourage action learning.
In order to motivate students and build credibility in our delivery, we have trained a
range of entrepreneurs and academic tutors to support the delivery of the ICE units.
Lourenco and Joness (2006) study highlighted the importance of using enthusiastic
entrepreneurs (i.e. pracademics) to deliver entrepreneurship education in order to
motivate students, bring relevance to the learning content and offer real-world advice
to students. This strategy is another key design principle for the development of
education for entrepreneurship.
In summary, the ICE units (which attract around 700 students each year) have
consistently received positive student satisfaction ratings, scoring above 4.0 each year
at all levels (where 5 excellent). The ICE units have been accredited by the Chartered

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
511

JSBED
20,3

512

Management Institute professional certification in business start-up and we are

currently in talks with other professional qualification bodies to developing bespoke
professional accreditations linked to each of our ICE units. Students can benefit from
obtaining professional qualifications related to entrepreneurship, small business
management and development of enterprising skills to improve their employability.
The following section discusses our methodology for multi-faculty collaboration on
promoting graduate entrepreneurship.
Multi-faculty integration and collaboration
Graduate entrepreneurship is becoming ever more important in a stagnating jobs
market, where unemployment and graduate numbers are both high. HEIs need to
focus on imbuing entrepreneurial potential and increasing graduate employability
(Kirby, 2004; Matlay, 2011). This resulted in 2004 in the establishment of the
National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (now the National Centre for
Entrepreneurship in Education) in the UK to support all aspects of student and
graduate entrepreneurship. The government acknowledges the important role of
HEIs to actively engage in entrepreneurship education, knowledge transfer and
business support to boost their activities in order to tackle the current economic
crisis (National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, 2009b). Subsequently, a
number of funds, such as the Economic Challenge Investment Fund have been setup
to boost the efforts of HEIs to support entrepreneurship (National Council for
Graduate Entrepreneurship, 2010). However, in England there were only 7 per cent
of the overall student population engaged in enterprise or entrepreneurship
programmes (Hannon, 2007) and this figure grew to 16 per cent in a recent report
(National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, 2010). The business school is the
main faculty that provides the in-curricula activities (63.5 per cent), followed by the
faculty of engineering (8.81 per cent) and the art and design faculty (8.47 per cent)
(Hannon, 2007) and this is expected to continue (National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, 2010). Similarly, Matlay and Careys (2007) investigation of 40 UK
HEIs indicated that the business school dominated the provision of enterprise and
entrepreneurship training, where only three courses were offered outside the
business school (computing and engineering faculties). In the same way, McKeown
et al.s (2006) survey found that 86 HEIs provided some form of entrepreneurship or
enterprise programme out of the 102 HEIs. Out of these 86 HEIs, the business
school is the dominant faculty in the provision of enterprise and entrepreneurship
programmes. Interestingly, training programmes run by the science, technology, art
and design, or engineering faculties created more start-ups than business faculties.
McKeown et al. (2006, p. 610) argue that:
[. . .] the Business School may not be the best place for enterprise education aimed at business
creation. Here business schools may benefit from better links with these other faculties or
they may need to develop practical awareness of product development techniques and
processes if they are to offer effective support for both service and product-based start-up
businesses.

If HEIs seek to increase the overall number of students engaging in enterprise or

entrepreneurship activities, then non-business faculties need to engage in enterprise
and entrepreneurship education. As a whole, non-business students represent around
86 per cent of the overall student population in the UK (Higher Education Statistics

Agency, 2011). The literature emphasises the importance of interdisciplinary projects

between business and non-business faculties in designing programmes and promoting
entrepreneurship (Bechard and Gregoire, 2005; Hartshorn and Hannon, 2005; Jones,
2010). It is apparent that collaborative work between the business school and other
faculties can be beneficial. This can increase the overall level of enterprise activities
among the student population.
A recent report noted the importance of providing entrepreneurial skills such as
commercialisation of ideas to those involved in the creative industry (7.3 per cent of the
UK economy) (Department for Culture, Media & Sport, 2007). As noted in the report,
these entrepreneurial skills are crucial to the economy because the creative industry in
the UK (e.g. advertising, fashion, music, publishing, video games, design, etc.) is one of
the fastest growing sectors and creates more employment in London than the financial
services. Hence, it is important to develop inter-disciplinary entrepreneurship
programmes to enhance the entrepreneurial prospects of students from non-business
faculties such as the creative disciplines.
Hartshorn and Hannon (2005) and Hannon (2007, p. 207) noted that training
programmes for non-business subjects may need to adopt, develop, test approaches
and models based upon different language and terminology, different aspirations and
goals, different value and belief systems. This opens a new scope for the development
of entrepreneurship and enterprise education. Nevertheless, as noted in the literature,
business schools tend to offer off-the-shelf products that do not suit the overall student
population (Gibb, 2002; Collins et al., 2004). In order to promote cross-faculty
entrepreneurship education, it is important to develop programmes that are relevant to
specific subjects. This leads to the question of how to design relevant entrepreneurship
education that suits non-business faculties. The following section describes our design
methodology and strategies for collaboration with non-business faculties to promote
entrepreneurship education.
The 80/20 methodology
As highlighted in the literature, cross-faculty collaboration is necessary if we aim to
increase the level of graduate entrepreneurship and develop enterprising individuals.
However, there are challenges faced by the business school because developing unique
and relevant programmes will require substantial amount of resources, time and
collaboration between faculty members from different faculties (Gibb, 2011). In order to
tackle this issue, we have developed a design methodology that allows the
development of subject-specific programmes for entrepreneurship that require
effective and efficient usage of time and resources: the 80/20 methodology.
We propose that the business school offers a standardised package representing 80
per cent of the overall training material to other faculties. This includes content
relating to key aspects of entrepreneurship that is transferable to different subjects
for example the process of business start-up, concept of entrepreneurship, opportunity
identification, creativity and innovation, marketing, business planning, small business
management, business pitching and research methods. Additionally, this includes
training material such as guidelines, activity templates, PowerPoint slides, assessment
and assignment templates. The remaining 20 per cent of the training material is left
open for non-business faculty members to prepare and develop in order to turn the
overall package subject specific (Table III).

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
513

JSBED
20,3

514

Example of pedagogy

Type of design

Designed by

Mini-lecture: introduction of theory,

tool, concept or method
Case, scenario or a story
Activity

Standardised material

The business school

Flexible material
Standardised format with
changeable content/context
Standardised format with
changeable content/context
Standardised format with
changeable content/context

Non-business school
Business/non-business

Assignment
Table III.
Pedagogy, type of design
and faculties

Assessment

Business/non-business
Business/non-business

The business school is responsible for trainers training to support non-business

faculty members to learn how to use the standardised material (80 per cent) and learn
how to design the remaining training material (20 per cent). This includes:
(1) preparing case studies, videos, guest speakers and/or field trips; and
(2) amending the guidelines, training activities, PowerPoint slides, and assessment
and assignment briefs to suit different subjects (Table III).
Figure 3 depicts an example of a typical training session and format.
The 80/20 design methodology is an approach that exploits the benefit of
standardisation of training material to reduce the cost and time for development and
collaboration. This methodology provides a twist that allows non-business faculty
members to have the flexibility to mould the material to suit their specific subject and
target group. This methodology aims to reduce the cost and time of development and
provide ease of integration of entrepreneurship education into non-business faculties
that suits different disciplines and subjects.
This year, 12 partner colleges have integrated a new ICE unit (ICE-Cycle), which
combines ICE 1 and ICE 2, into their curriculum. Short versions of ICE have been
delivered to business faculties in Paris (France), Delhi (India), Macao (China), and
Vilnius (Lithuania), in a leading art and design university in London (UK), and a
number of HEIs in the UK. The success of ICE has led to proposals to integrate ICE into
other faculties. ICE units have already been designed and approved for programmes
within the faculty of food and tourism (20/80 ICE). The development of this ICE unit
and our 80/20 design methodology contributed to the authors achieving the coveted
UK National Enterprise Educator Awards in 2009.

Figure 3.
Session format
(standardised, flexible and
semi-flexible material)

The integration process and the politics

In July 2003, our institution published a strategic plan for the period 2003 to 2010. In
this plan, enterprise activity was seen as a key element. The enterprise agenda was
further reinforced with the arrival of a new Vice Chancellor, who put forward a new
Institutional Strategic Plan 2007-2020 (The 2020 Vision). The 2020 Vision has
specifically identified a range of university strategic goals for Academic Enterprise,
strongly related to entrepreneurship education. These are:
.
to ensure that all students are exposed to enterprise and to develop their
entrepreneurial skills accordingly; and
.
to ensure that teaching, learning and staff development are enriched through
enterprise activities.
The environment for curriculum change in the area of entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial skills development was created, and presented an opportunity to be
exploited. Therefore, we formed a small team to initiate a project that led to the creation
of the three-year series of ICE units. There are three major roles in this team:
(1) research and development;
(2) internal affairs (politics, procedures, and regulations); and
(3) sales, marketing and operations.
This next section will highlight the challenges related to integrating the ICE unit in the
university curriculum (i.e. internal affairs).
Our university procedures ensure on a periodic basis, usually a maximum of five
years, that the design, academic standards and quality of learning opportunities of its
programmes remain appropriate. Throughout the process, reference is made to the
university regulations and policies, universitys strategic objectives as laid out in the
Institutional Strategic Plan, any national benchmarks and, if appropriate, professional
employment demands. The programme review provided opportunities for exploitation
in relation to curriculum and programme change. The process is rigorous and has two
stages requiring strategic review and academic scrutiny. The review process, if
managed effectively, can be seen as an opportunity for significant change. The
academic scrutiny requires programme teams to engage in a number of consultations,
i.e. academic consultation, resource consultation, student consultation and
collaborative partner consultation. Finally, once a programme and/or unit is
approved, then there is an option called programme modification that allows minor
or major modifications to be proposed in relation to the original programme or unit.
This creates flexibility in the system that can be exploited by motivated teams of
academics.
Tables IV and V show the impact of programme review and modifications on
programmes at the Business School over a ten year-period. Initially, there was a unit
called Enterprising Management that followed a standardised business strategy
approach with a very traditional teaching style based on knowledge transfer. This unit
was radically changed to respond to the 2003-2010 university strategic plans that have
an enterprise agenda. Subsequent to the arrival of a new Vice-Chancellor at our
university, a new strategic plan was developed for 2007-2020. This continued to have a
strong influence on the enterprise agenda, in part leading to the re-development of the

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
515

JSBED
20,3
Year
Year 1
Year 2

516
Table IV.
Programme review,
2000-2009

Year 3

Strategic plan 2003-2010

Programme review
Programme modifications
New Strategic Plan 2007-2020
2007
2008
2009
ICEa
ICEa

ICE 1
ICE 1
ICE 2

ICE 80/20 scheme

ICE 2
ICE 3

Notes: The ICE 80/20 scheme offers the entrepreneurship unit to non-business faculties; aICE Initial
unit that combines aspects of ICE 1 and ICE 2

Enterprising Management unit into what is now known as ICE. The first ICE unit was
initially accepted in the 2007 Programme Review and it was expanded through the
process of Programme Modification to introduce the three-year series of units, a
modified unit for our foundation colleges, and the 80/20 scheme for non-business
faculties.
While promoting and integrating entrepreneurship education in the curriculum is
emphasised in the literature, issues that may restrict the process are highlighted.
For example: there may be a lack of resources and/or an overload on the university
system (Sexton and Bowman, 1984; Hills, 1988); bureaucracy and political infighting
(McMullan and Long, 1987); a lack of flexibility in the use of resources and
hierarchical departmental structures in schools and universities (Gibb, 1993); and/or
restricted space for new courses and new ways of teaching (Smith et al., 2006). This
highlights the complication of implementing new initiatives and not to mention
enterprising approaches to support entrepreneurship education in HEIs (Herrmann
et al., 2008; Gibb et al., 2009; Volkmann et al., 2009; Gibb, 2010; Draycott and Rae,
2011). Many of these issues have affected the flow of our development and the
integration process. Nonetheless, many hurdles were passed with ease because our
development was in line with the overall strategic plan of the university, and the
timing coincided with the programme review in 2007 allowing us to integrate and
expand ICE at a faster pace. Timing and alignment to the strategic plan both
played a crucial role in our project.
The quick expansion of the ICE unit attracted criticism, non-believers, and
opposition to our approach and pedagogy. In order to deal with the internal politics and
build a credible foundation for ICE within our institution, we used positive feedback
from external sources and theoretical justifications from the literature. For example,
positive student and external examiner feedback/evaluation helped to overcome many
objections and doubts about our pedagogy. Our design methodology was recognised in
2009 by winning the National Enterprise Educator Awards (UK) which was judged by
well-known entrepreneurship educators in the field. This helped to develop a positive
perception towards ICE in the university and thus credibility was created. The
expansion and integration of ICE into external HEIs and colleges also indicated its
relevance and value to external partners. Finally, we helped create a clearer
understanding for management when we presented documents containing the
theoretical underpinning for our design principles and methodology.

2000 to 2003
Programme unit
Pedagogy

Traditional
Year 3 Enterprising
knowledge transfer
management
For Business
Enterprise degree only

Year
Enterprising
management
For the whole
school

Practical focus on
business start-up

2004 to 2006
Programme unit Pedagogy
Enterprising
management
For the whole
school

Practical focus on business startup and Behaviour and traits

development

2007 to present
Programme unit Pedagogy

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
517

Table V.
Initial Education for
Entrepreneurship unit

JSBED
20,3

518

HEIs reform and academic entrepreneurship

Hannon (2007) noted that there is uncertainty in government funding and subsidies to
HEIs. This point is justified by the recent shake up of the higher education system as
proposed in the Browne Review (BBC, 2010c; Browne, 2010). In brief, the Browne
Review proposes a number of strategies to reform higher education funding system. At
its core, funding and subsidies to HEIs will be removed and reserved for priority
subjects and public investment to be targeted only at clinical medicine, nursing,
science, technology and modern languages. This proposes a free market model to the
higher education sector. HEIs are therefore allowed to adjust the tuition fees to cover
the loss of income through government subsidies. Brownes (2010) model will create a
79 per cent cut in teaching grant (3.2bn) and a further 1bn cut for research is also
proposed (Richardson, 2010). The Liberal-Conservative coalition government has led
these proposed changes, which have already been passed by Parliament and will be
initiated in 2012. As a consequence, the need to find alternative income streams to
finance daily operations and research activities are becoming ever more important.
Academic entrepreneurship is therefore a strategy for HEIs to promote in order to
develop alternative income streams such as the commercialisation of the universitys
research discoveries (Wood, 2009). As noted in Patzelt and Shepherd (2009), many
countries and regions have introduced interventions to support academic
entrepreneurship as it is an important driver of economic growth and wealth creation.
As noted in the previous section, the Institutional Strategic Plan (The 2020 Vision)
set for our institution has specifically identified a range of university strategies for
academic enterprise. Two of which are strongly related to promoting academic
entrepreneurial activities:
(1) to reduce dependency on income from funding council grants by enhancing
third stream activities, and in particular exploiting intellectual property; and
(2) to invest further in and develop the administrative infrastructure to support
entrepreneurial activities.
For this reason, this has created another window of opportunity for ICE
commercialisation in order to create an alternative income stream for the university.
In general, we recognise the need to promote graduate entrepreneurs and the need to
develop enterprising individuals. In response to this market demand, we have
developed three types of products/services aiming to generate alternative income for
the institution:
(1) a full ICE training package (licensed products);
(2) the 80/20 package; and
(3) a full training design and facilitation service.
Our guiding principle is to start small but think big with regard to our
commercialisation strategy and targets. To date, our efforts have led to the
development of small-scale income streams. The surpluses were reinvested into the
ICE project to support our exposure in the overseas education market and develop
further products/services. Further pilot schemes are being negotiated in the USA, a
number of African countries, Estonia, the Middle East, Singapore and China.

In summary, the timing and alignment to the university-wide strategic plan were
crucial factors that supported the success of our project. Another critical factor was
effective team-working. Team roles and responsibilities were devised for each member
at the start of the ICE project (implicitly and explicitly). In brief, each team member
was responsible to work on areas that they are familiar with and therefore synergy and
effectiveness was created:
.
author 1 research and development;
.
author 2 internal affairs and strategies; and
.
author 3 marketing, sales and operations.
This small team, in part, acted like a business unit within a larger organisation.
Conclusion
This paper argues in response to the current economic downturn and unemployment
issues that graduate entrepreneurship is an important intervention. HEIs play an
important role in helping students make the transition to being successful entrepreneurs
who can create their own job and possibly jobs for others. We have set out to discuss two
major areas in this paper, i.e. design methodology for entrepreneurship education and for
multi-faculty collaboration. We have also highlighted the integration of ICE inside our
university and with our college partners, as well as our efforts toward academic
entrepreneurship. Our project (see the Appendix) resulted in the formation of a range of
businesses (over 120) and many graduate entrepreneurs.
This paper contributes to the entrepreneurship education community through the
sharing of our experiences, our design principles and methodology. In turn, we aim to
encourage the growth of graduate entrepreneurship in the UK to overcome the problem
of over-supply of university graduates in a very difficult employment market. Harvard
Business School has recently announced the reinvention of its MBA programme by
emphasising more on learning by doing and integrating business start-up as a
requirement of the course (The Economist, 2011). Harvard Business School is doing
this as part of its reinvention, and ICE in a small way is doing the same for our
university by helping our students to be more employable and entrepreneurial.
References
Alavi, M. (1994), Computer-mediated collaboration learning: an empirical evaluation,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-174.
Alavi, M., Marakas, G.M. and Yoo, Y. (2002), A comparative study of distributed learning
environments on learning outcomes, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 404-415.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003), A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
identification and development, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 105-123.
BBC (2010a), Forecast suggests 600,000 public sector jobs to go, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/
news/10457352 (accessed 30 November 2010).
BBC (2010b), Spending cuts and VAT rise to cost 1.6m jobs, says CIPD, available at: www.bbc.
co.uk/news/business-11671009 (accessed 30 November 2010).
BBC (2010c), At a glance: Browne Report, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/education11519147 (accessed 30 November 2010).

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
519

JSBED
20,3

520

Bechard, J.-P. and Gregoire, D. (2005), Entrepreneurship education research re-visited: the case
of higher education, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 22-43.
Browne, J. (2010), Securing a sustainable future for higher education: an independent review of
higher education funding and student finance, available at: http://hereview.independent.
gov.uk/hereview/report/ (accessed 30 November 2010).
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2010), Labour Market Outlook: Quarterly
Survey Report, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Co, M.J. and Mitchell, B. (2006), Entrepreneurship education in South Africa: a nationwide
survey, EducationTraining, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 348-359.
Collins, L., Hannon, P.D. and Smith, A. (2004), Enacting entrepreneurial intent: the gaps between
student needs and higher education capability, EducationTraining, Vol. 46 Nos 8/9,
pp. 454-463.
Curran, J. and Blackburn, R. (1989), Young People and Enterprise: A National Survey, Small
Business Research Centre, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames.
Department for Culture, Media & Sport (2007), Staying Ahead: The Economic Performance of the
UKs Creative Industries, Department for Culture, Media & Sport, London.
Draycott, M. and Rae, D. (2011), Enterprise education in schools and the role of competency
frameworks, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 127-145.
Fletcher, M. (1999), Promoting entrepreneurship as a career option the graduate enterprise
programme, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 127-139.
Gibb, A. (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, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 146-165.
Gibb, A.A. (1987a), Designing effective programmes for encouraging the business start-up
process: lessons from UK experience, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 24-32.
Gibb, A.A. (1987b), Enterprise culture: its meaning and implications for education and training,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3-38.
Gibb, A.A. (1993), The enterprise culture and education, International Small Business Journal,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 11-34.
Gibb, A.A. (2002), 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 Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 233-269.
Gibb, A., Haskins, G. and Robertson, I. (2009), Leading the entrepreneurial university: meeting
the entrepreneurial development needs of higher education institutions, The National
Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
Gibb, A. (2010), Towards the entrepreneurial university: entrepreneurship education as a lever
for change, The National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
Greeno, J.G. (1974), Processes of learning and comprehension, in Greg, L.W. (Ed.), Knowledge
and Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Gregoire, D.A., Noel, M.X., Dery, R. and Bechard, J.-P. (2006), Is there conceptual convergence in
entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of frontiers of entrepreneurship
research, 1981-2004, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 333-373.

Hannon, P. (2007), Enterprise for all? The fragility of enterprise provision across Englands
HEIs, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 183-210.
Harlow, D.N. (1972), Behavioral theories converge: a dynamic behavioral model, Academy of
Management Proceedings, Supplement, pp. 66-68.
Hartshorn, C. and Hannon, P.D. (2005), Paradoxes in entrepreneurship education: chalk and talk
or chalk and cheese? A case approach, EducationTraining, Vol. 47 Nos 8/9, pp. 616-627.
Herrmann, K., Hannon, P., Cox, J. and Ternouth, P. (2008), Developing entrepreneurial
graduates: putting entrepreneurship at the centre of higher education, The National
Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
Higher Education Statistics Agency (2007), Career progression of graduates, press release,
6 November, available at: www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/888/161/ (accessed
14 December 2010).
Higher Education Statistics Agency (2011), Higher education student enrolments and
qualifications obtained at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom for the
academic year 2009/10, available at: www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?optioncom_content&
taskview&id1936&Itemid161 (accessed 30 December 2011).
Higher Education Statistics Agency (2012), Statistics students and qualifiers at UK HE
institutions, available at: www.hesa.ac.uk/content/view/1897/239/ (accessed 30 January
2012).
High Fliers Research (2012), The Graduate Market in 2012: Annual Review of Graduate
Vacancies & Starting Salaries at Britains Leading Employers, High Fliers Research,
London.
Hills, G.E. (1988), Variations in university entrepreneurship education: an empirical study of an
evolving field, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 109-122.
International Labour Organization (2012), Global unemployment trends, available at: www.ilo.
org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_
171571.pdf (accessed 9 November 2012).
Jones, C. (2010), Entrepreneurship education: revisiting our role and its purpose, Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 500-513.
Kewin, J., Hughes, T. and Fletcher, T. (2010), Generation Crunch: The Demand for Recent
Graduates from SMEs, CFE, London.
Kirby, D.A. (2004), Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?,
EducationTraining, Vol. 46 Nos 8/9, pp. 510-519.
Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lane, E. (2010), What shape are the worlds economies in?, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/
business-10955199 (accessed 30 October 2010).
Laukkanen, M. (2000), Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship
education: creating micro mechanisms for endogenous regional growth, Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 25-47.
Lewis, K. (2005), The best of intentions: future plans of Young Enterprise Scheme participants,
EducationTraining, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 470-483.
Lexmond, J. and Bradley, W. (2010), Class of 2010: a report into the attitudes and aspirations of
this years graduates, Demos, London.
Lourenco, F. and Jayawarna, D. (2011), The effect of creativity on post-training outcomes in
enterprise education, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 224-244.

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
521

JSBED
20,3

522

Lourenco, F. and Jones, O. (2006), Developing entrepreneurship education: comparing

traditional and alternative teaching approaches, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 111-140.
McKeown, J., Millman, C., Sursani, S.R., Smith, K. and Martin, L.M. (2006), Graduate
entrepreneurship education in the United Kingdom, EducationTraining, Vol. 48 Nos 8/9,
pp. 597-613.
McMullan, W.E. and Long, W.A. (1987), Entrepreneurship education in the nineties, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 261-275.
Matlay, H. (2006), Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 2: what is entrepreneurship
education and does it matter?, EducationTraining, Vol. 48 Nos 8/9, pp. 704-718.
Matlay, H. (2010), Introduction: Contemporary perspectives on entrepreneurship education and
training, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, p. x.
Matlay, H. (2011), The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UK
HEIs, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 166-182.
Matlay, H. and Carey, C. (2007), Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a longitudinal
perspective, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 252-263.
Nabi, G., Holden, R. and Walmsley, A. (2006), Graduate career-making and business start-up:
a literature review, EducationTraining, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 373-385.
National Institute of Economic and Social Research (2012a), press release: embargo, 4 May,
available at: www.niesr.ac.uk/pdf/030512_163008.pdf (accessed 10 November 2012).
National Institute of Economic and Social Research (2012b), press release: embargo, 2 November,
available: www.niesr.ac.uk/pdf/021112_01155.pdf (accessed 10 November 2012).
National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (2009a), New businesses are key to surviving
the recession, available at: http://ncge.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/new-businesses-arekey-to-surviving-the-recession (accessed 30 December 2009).
National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (2009b), Universities mobilise to support
business and entrepreneurs, available: http://ncge.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/
universities-mobilise-to-support-business-and-entrepreneurs (accessed 30 December 2009).
National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (2009c), Entrepreneurship, HE and the
recession, available at: http://ncge.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/entrepreneurship-he-andthe-recession/ (accessed 14 January 2010).
National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (2010), Enterprise and entrepreneurship in
higher education: 2010 National Survey, available at: www.ncge.com (accessed
30 December 2010).
Nurmi, P. and Paasio, K. (2007), Entrepreneurship in Finnish universities, Education
Training, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 56-65.
Office for National Statistics (2012), Labour market statistics: November 2012, available at:
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/november-2012/statistical-bulletin.
html (accessed 22 November 2012).
Patzelt, H. and Shepherd, D.A. (2009), Strategic entrepreneurship at universities: academic
entrepreneurs assessment of policy programs, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 319-340.
Pittaway, L., Hannon, P., Gibb, A. and Thompson, J. (2009), Assessment practice in enterprise
education, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 71-93.

Plaschka, G.R. and Welsch, H.P. (1990), Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education:
curricular designs and strategies, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 55-71.
Rae, D. (2010), Universities and enterprise education: responding to the challenges of the new
era, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 591-606.
Richardson, H. (2010), Spending review: universities to face 4.2bn cut, available at: www.
bbc.co.uk/news/education-11550619 (accessed 30 November 2010).
Robertson, M., Price, A. and Wilkinson, D. (2004), West Yorkshire Universities Graduate
Start-up Partnership: Student Entrepreneurial Intentions Survey 2004 an analysis of
2003-04 Student Entrepreneurial Intentions Survey conducted at Leeds Metropolitan
University, the University of Leeds, the University of Huddersfield and the University of
Bradford by Business Start-Up @ Leeds Met for Yorkshire Forward, Yorkshire Forward,
Leeds.
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman, N.B. (1984), Entrepreneurship education: suggestions for increasing
effectiveness, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 18-25.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-226.
Shuell, T.J. (1981), Towards a model of learning from instruction, Psychological Theory and
Educational Practices: Is it Possible to Bridge the Gap? Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Shuell, T.J. (1986), Cognitive conceptions of learning, Review of Education Research, Vol. 56
No. 4, pp. 411-436.
Smith, A.J., Collins, L.A. and Hannon, P.D. (2006), Embedding new entrepreneurship
programmes in UK higher education institutions: challenges and considerations,
EducationTraining, Vol. 48 Nos 8/9, pp. 555-567.
Stamm, B.v. (2003), Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity, Wiley, Chichester.
The Economist (2011), Field of dreams: Harvard Business School reinvents its MBA course,
3 December, available at: www.economist.com/node/21541045?fsrcscn/tw/te/ar/
fieldofdreams (accessed 30 December 2011).
UCAS (2012), Total applicants for all courses, available at: www.ucas.ac.uk/about_us/media_
enquiries/media_releases/2012/20120709 (accessed 9 November 2012).
Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Mariotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. and Sepulveda, A. (2009),
Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet
the global challenges of the 21st century, paper presented at the World Economic Forum,
Geneva.
Wittrock, M.C. (1978), The cognitive movement in instruction, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 13,
pp. 15-29.
Wittrock, M.C. (1986), Students thought processes in Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.), Handbook of
Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., Macmillan, New York, NY.
Wood, M.S. (2009), Does one size fit all? The multiple organizational forms leading to auccessful
academic entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 929-947.
Further reading
National Institute of Economic and Social Research (2011), press release: embargo, 3 November,
available at: www.niesr.ac.uk/pdf/031111_83237.pdf (accessed 30 November 2011).
Paton, G. (2010), Top A-level students could miss out on university, The Telegraph, 8 August.

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
523

JSBED
20,3

524

Appendix
The following is a list of examples of companies created via education for entrepreneurship:
.
eBay interface business;
.
fancy dress;
.
gadgets;
.
calendars;
.
laptop covers;
.
gifts;
.
websites;
.
consultants;
.
restaurant vouchers;
.
animal exercise;
.
health and fitness;
.
clothing;
.
parcel delivery;
.
smartphone applications;
.
personal attack alarms;
.
household security;
.
new student welcome packs;
.
childrens literature;
.
sports events;
.
PS3 and other gaming events;
.
revision guides;
.
event management;
.
second-hand books;
.
gas certification;
.
flat rental;
.
phone recycling;
.
portable massage;
.
yearbook;
.
cleaning equipment;
.
sandwich delivery;
.
student guides;
.
under-18 events;
.
magazine;
.
phone charge stations;
.
fancy dress;
.
music and culture magazine;
.
parcel delivery;
.
catering;

.
.
.
.
.
.

online bicycle sales;

domestic energy assessors;
record label and fashion clothing;
apps
health products; and
organic soup.

Corresponding author
Fernando Lourenco can be contacted at: f.lourenco@mmu.ac.uk or fernandolourenco@ift.edu.mo

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Integrating
education for
entrepreneurship
525