See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265087921

Learning theories in entrepreneurship: new perspectives

Conference Paper · January 2012

CITATION READS

1 2,593

2 authors:

Olivier Toutain Janice Byrne

Burgundy School of Business The University of Western Ontario
74 PUBLICATIONS   131 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   192 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Education entrepreneuriale : recherche action à base d'ateliers créatifs pour réfléchir sur ses fondements avec l'ensemble des parties prenantes concernées View
project

Entrepreneurship Mindset View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Janice Byrne on 05 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

RESEARCH IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP:

LEARNING FROM LEARNING THEORIES

ABSTRACT

In recent years, researchers have begun to devote more attention to the matter of how

entrepreneurs learn. Entrepreneurial learning has been defined as a ‘dynamic process of

awareness, reflection, association and application that involves transforming experience and

knowledge into functional learning outcomes’ (Rae, 2006, p. 42). There is a growing

consensus that a ‘better theoretical grasp’ of entrepreneurial learning is imperative (Cope,

2005, p. 379). However the theoretical base and relationship of entrepreneurship and

entrepreneurial learning to adult learning orientations remains under-explored. For this paper,

the authors conducted an extensive review of the literature to examine the extent to which

entrepreneurship research over the last twenty years has incorporated and applied the major

adult learning schools (behaviorist, cognitivist, humanist, social and constructivist). We

delineate the predominant approaches and cite representative studies. We contend that

applying learning theory to entrepreneurship serves as a map by which we can further explore

the magnitude and complexity of entrepreneurial action. The five learning theory paradigms

serve as a critical thinking tool which can help students, entrepreneurs and researchers better

understand the intricate interaction between the entrepreneur and his/her environment.

1
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

“Entrepreneurship is a process of learning, and a theory of entrepreneurship requires

a theory of learning” (Minniti and Bygrave, 2001, p7)

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade there have been an increasing number of explorations of “learning” in

the context of entrepreneurship and small and medium enterprises (SME) development

(Harrison and Leitch, 2005). Several authors have argued that learning is central to the

entrepreneurial process (Cope, 2005; Harrison & Leitch, 2005; Honig, 2001; Reuber and

Fischer, 1993; Smilor, 1997; Van Gelderen, van der Sluis and Jansen, 2005). Understanding

how individuals learn, as they navigate nascent activities, is critical for our understanding of

new venture emergence (Honig, 2001). Understanding ongoing learning in ventures post-

startup is equally important (Sardana and Scott-Kemis, 2010). Reuber and Fischer (1993)

demonstrate that the learning process within entrepreneurship is essentially dynamic and

appears to be continuous throughout the life of a firm, rather than being concentrated in the

first few years. In recent years, researchers have begun to develop models to account for how

entrepreneurs learn (e.g., Cope, 2005; Corbett, 2005, 2007; Harrison & Leitch, 2005; Minniti

& Bygrave, 2001; Rae & Carswell, 2001). Indeed, there is a growing consensus that a ‘better

theoretical grasp’ of entrepreneurial learning is imperative (Cope, 2005, p379).

If, as Minniti & Bygrave (2001) assert, a theory of entrepreneurship requires a theory of

learning, one would assume that researchers would draw on extant theory in learning and

educational science to enlighten entrepreneurship scholars’ quest for knowledge on learning.

Yet this is not the case. This reluctance (or failure) on the part of entrepreneurship scholars

to integrate extant theory from well established fields is widely acknowledged.

Entrepreneurship models need to be rooted in psychology and sociology if they are to have

2
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

theoretical validity (Bygrave, 1989). Yet, entrepreneurship research is often carried out in an

ad-hoc way without the development – or full exploration - of theoretical underpinnings

(Harrison and Leitch, 2005). The basic problems which the entrepreneurship field face stem

on the one hand from the number of issues to be explored and on the other from the diverse

range of disciplines from which these may be examined (Harrison and Leitch, 2005). Indeed

the mixing of concepts and methods from widely disparate fields causes difficulty for

researchers (Bygrave, 1989). The literature in the subfield of Entrepreneurship Education

(EE) is a case in point. It has been found to suffer from an acute lack of theoretical grounding

(Henry, Hill, & Leitch, 2003; Kailer, 2009). EE research fails to draw on extant theory from

the educational science or learning theory literature (Bechard and Gregoire, 2005; Harrison

and Leitch, 2005; Pittaway and Cope, 2007). While the field of management has actively

applied theories and concepts of learning to better understand management development, the

application of concepts of learning to entrepreneurship research has been limited (Harrison

and Leitch, 2005).

Thus, in this paper we attempt to look the extent to which learning theory has been applied

(both implicitly and explicitly) in the existing entrepreneurship literature. While we recognize

the growing body of theory addressing organizational learning in small firms (i.e. Chaston,

Badger, & Sadler-Smith, 2001; Honig, 2001), we focus our attention here on learning which

takes place on an individual level. We concern ourselves with theory and research that

addresses 1) entrepreneurship education as well as 2) entrepreneurial learning. We broadly

interpret the latter category as any research article which refers to the learning experienced by

entrepreneurs during the initiation and growth of entrepreneurial ventures (following Cope,

2005).

3
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

This paper describes our preliminary findings from an extensive literature review of 229

articles drawn from eight leading entrepreneurship and management education journals. To

structure our inquiry, we draw on Merriam and Caffarrella’s (1999) learning paradigm

classification model. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) categorized learning theories into five

schools or paradigms, each with distinctive, although sometimes overlapping, perspectives

and approaches to learning. These five main learning orientations in learning theory are:

behaviourist, humanist, cognitivist, social cognitive and social constructivist. In this paper,

we seek to identify 1) the extent to which these approaches to understanding learning have

been evoked in entrepreneurship research over the last twenty years and 2) the implications

for future research on learning and entrepreneurship.

This paper will be structured as follows: first, we introduce the concept of learning and

learning theories and describe Merriam and Caffarella’s (1999) learning orientations

classification model in more detail. Second, we outline our literature review methodology,

detailing the measures and steps taken to build our database of 229 articles and proceed with

their analysis. Third, we present the findings of our review, illustrating the favored and less

favored learning theories in entrepreneurship research and discussing the implications of this.

We conclude by outlining the value of Merriam and Caffarella’s model as a pedagogical tool

for critical thinking in entrepreneurship.

THEORETICAL GROUNDING

Learning and Learning Theory

During the last decade, learning has become a key topic, not only for professionals and

students in psychology, pedagogy and education, but also in political and economic contexts

(Illeris, 2009). This may be attributed to the pivotal role learning is thought to play in

4
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

transforming post-industrial societies and economies into knowledge economies and

innovation societies. While learning is defined in various ways – depending on the anchoring

learning paradigm you adhere to (more about this in subsequent paragraphs) – the notion of

change underlies most definitions (Merriam, Caffarella and Baumgartner, 2009). Learning is

also thought to result from an experience of some sort. Whereas traditionally, learning was

understood as being solely about the acquisition of knowledge and skills, today the concept is

increasingly seen to encompass emotional, social and societal dimensions too (Illeris, 2009).

Learning is not necessarily always good - we learn bad habits as well as good – nor is it

always a conscious and deliberate effort (Hill, 2002). A contemporary perspective on learning

views it as the collection of cognitive, emotional and environmental influences and

experiences for acquiring, enhancing or making changes in one’s knowledge, skills, values

and worldviews (Illeris, 2000).

Explanations of what happens in the learning process are called learning theories (Merriam,

Caffarella and Baumgartner, 2007). There are several theoretical approaches to understanding

the nature of learning. Indeed numerous classifications exist. How the knowledge base in this

area is divided and labeled depends on the author (Merriam, Caffarella and Baumgartner,

2007). Hilgard and Bower (1966) addressed eleven learning theories that may be further

classified as belonging to one of two families: stimulus response theories and cognitive

theories. Greeno, Collins and Resnik (1996) organize their discussion of learning into three

general perspectives that have developed in psychological research. In the domain of Human

Resource Development, Torrington, Hall and Taylor (2005) assert that there are ‘broadly four

theoretical approaches or perspectives to understanding the nature of learning’ (p385). In

adult learning theory, Knowles (1984) grouped learning theories according to two different

worldviews: mechanistic and organismic. In general, learning paradigms are classifications of

learning theories into schools based on their most dominant traits (Leonard, 2002).

5
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

In this research project, we employ Merriam and Caffarella’s (1999) oft-cited classification

of learning paradigms to guide our inquiry. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) categorized

learning theories into five schools or paradigms, each with distinctive, although sometimes

overlapping, perspectives and approaches to learning. Merriam and Cafferella’s classification

is consistent with their focus on adult learning, which we find particularly relevant for

entrepreneurship giving that we are considering entrepreneurship as an activity performed in

the course of one’s adult, professional life. In additional, their classification was chosen

because of its broad scope and inclusiveness (McKenna, 1992) and the concurrence of other

scholars (Marquard and Waddill, 2004). These five main learning orientations in learning

theory are: behaviourist, humanist, cognitivist, social cognitive and social constructivist. In

the paragraphs which follow we look at these five approaches to understanding learning

before going on to explore their prevalence in entrepreneurship research and the broader

implications for future research.

The Behaviorist Perspective

The behaviorist perspective on learning is one of the earliest approaches to understanding

learning and originated with the work of Watson, Skinner, Pavlov and Thorndike in the early

20th century (Merriam, Caffarella and Baumgartner, 2007). Learning theories which can be

ascribed to the behaviorist paradigm are built on the common assumption that behavior is to

be understood as a response of an organism to stimuli in a situation (Greeno, Collins and

Resnick, 1996). What one learns is influenced by elements in the environment not by the

individual learner (Merriam et al, 2007). Theorists influenced by this paradigm concentrate

on changes in observable behavior as evidence of learning. Essentially, this understanding of

learning does not address what is going on in the head of the student or trainee as the focus is

more on learners appropriating a routine (Torrington, Hall and Taylor, 2005). Learning

6
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

theories in the behaviorist tradition make varying assumptions about the processes by which

stimulus-response associations are strengthened and weakened in the events of an organism’s

activity and experience (Greeno, Collins and Resnick, 1996). What someone knows is often a

reflection of that person’s experience and coming to know something requires an experience

in which that knowledge can be acquired. The teacher’s role is to design an environment that

‘elicits desired behavior and extinguishes undesirable behavior’ (Merriam et al, 2007, p280).

In adult education, behaviorism is the philosophy that underlies many career and technical

education programs as well as human resource development. The emphasis in vocational

education is on identifying the skills needed to perform in an occupation, teaching those skills

and requiring a certain standard of performance in those skills (Merriam et al, 2007). The

legacy of the behavioral approach may be seen in organizational training and education

programs where designers lay out explicit ‘behavioral objectives’ that are to be reproduced

by students (Greeno, Collins and Resnick, 1996). Behaviorist approaches to management

learning legitimize learning as a ‘process that enables managers to detect and prevent errors,

accurately transfer information, or successfully achieve goals’ (Kayes, 2002).

The Cognitive Perspective

The cognitive orientation to learning grew from a growing critique of behaviorism as placing

too much emphasis on overt behavior to explain learning (Merriam et al, 2007). Cognitive

learning today encompasses a number of perspectives, all of which take as their starting point

the mental processes involved in learning (Wilson and Keil, 1999). Theories in this learning

paradigm are based on an “information-processing’ view of the learning process and are more

concerned with what goes on in the learners head (Torrington, Hall and Taylor, 2005).

According to cognitivists, the human mind is not simply a passive exchange terminal system

where the stimuli arrive and the appropriate response leaves. Rather the thinking person

7
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

interprets sensations and gives meaning to the events that impinge on his or her

consciousness (Merriam et al, 2007). Cognitivists focus on how humans learn and understand

using internal processes of acquiring, understanding and retaining knowledge (Marquardt and

Waddill, 2004). Cognitive learning focuses on both individual and group thinking processes

such as memory, perception, insight, mental models, schemas, meaning attribution and

representations (Kayes, 2002; Marquardt and Waddill, 2004). Two key assumptions underlie

theories subscribing to the cognitive paradigm: 1) the memory system is an active organized

processor of information and 2) prior knowledge plays an important role in learning

(Merriam et al, 2007).

This strength of this perspective is that it stresses the importance of learner motivation and

individual needs, it recognizes that the individual has some control over what is learned and it

identifies feedback as an important aspect of learning (Torrington, Hall and Taylor, 2005).

Learning occurs when humans re-organize experiences, thereby making sense of input from

the environment (Marquardt and Waddill, 2004). However this approach has been critiqued

for its disregard for emotion (Torrington, Hall and Taylor, 2005) and its overtly scientific

flavor. “Problem solving is an important aspect of cognitive learning, but the cognitive

characterization of the problem rests in representation rather than behavior. The ultimate goal

of cognition lies in creating coherent, orderly representations of complex problems in the

minds of managers” (Kayes, 2002, p138). Such criticisms are perhaps somewhat addressed

by researchers theorizing in the humanist learning orientation.

The Humanist Perspective

Theorists subscribing to a humanist paradigm consider learning from the perspective of the

human potential for growth (Merriam et al, 2007). The humanist school emphasizes the

8
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

value of the individual and places emphasis on the affective demain (Marquardt and Waddill,

2004). This approach to learning emerged as a kick-back reaction to the reductive scientific

tendency to treat the individual as an ‘object’ for enquiry (Merriam et al, 2007). Two main

proponents of humanistic psychology, Carl Rogers (1983) and Maslow (1970), made

significant early contributions to the humanist school of learning theory. Rogers emphasized

the potential of self-directed learning while Maslow proposed the notion of self-actualization.

Individuals seek self-actualization through learning and are capable of determining their own

learning (Marquardt and Waddill, 2004). Humanists refuse to accept the notion that behavior

is predetermined by either the environment or one’s subconscious, and believe rather that

human beings control their own destiny (Merriam et al, 2007). Kolb’s Experiential Learning

Theory (1984) is one example of contemporary work on management learning which has

humanistic roots.

For Kolb (1984), learning is "the process whereby knowledge is created through the

transformation of experience". According to ELT, managers learn by recognizing and

responding to a diverse set of environmental and personal demands. ELT is particularly

prevalent in management learning theorizing as it integrates all four management learning

processes into a single framework where managers resolve the emergent experiential tensions

between experience, reflection, abstraction and action (Kayes, 2002). Such theorizing is

distinguished by a concern with the innate self-direction and value of the manager as a

person, rather than as an instrument for achieving the goals of the larger organization (Kayes,

2002). However, humanist based learning theories are not without their critics. Kolb’s

influential ELT has been criticized for its ‘de-contextualization’ of learning and some argue

that it downplays the role of reflexivity (Holman et al., 1997; Vince, 1998).

9
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

The Social Cognitive Perspective

Social learning theory (also referred to as social cognitive theory) focuses on the social

context in which people learn; i.e., how they learn through interacting with and observing

other people (Marquardt and Waddill, 2004). This learning orientation combines elements

from both behaviourist and cognitivist orientations (Merriam et al, 2007). Theorists

subscribing to this learning paradigm view learning as a social activity which is based on our

needs as individuals to ‘fit in’ with others (Torrington, Hall and Taylor, 2005). By observing

others, we acquire knowledge, rules, skills, strategies, beliefs and attitudes. We also learn

about the ‘usefulness and appropriateness’ of particular behavior and form beliefs about the

expected outcomes of modeling that behavior (Merriam et al, 2007, p288). However, while

‘fitting in’ may mean that we are accepted, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we internalize

and believe in the prevailing codes (Torrington, Hall and Taylor, 2005).

Bandura – whose work began in the 1960s - is perhaps the most well known theorist in the

area of social learning theory. The important notions of ‘vicarious learning’ and ‘self-

efficacy’ in management learning are direct results of Bandura’s theorizing. Vicarious

learning is based on the idea that one can learn from observation alone, without having to

imitate what was observed: “virtually all learning phenomena resulting from direct

experiences can occur on a vicarious basis through observation of other peoples’ behavior

and its consequences for the observer” (Bandura, 1976, p392). The modeled behavior may be

then stored until a person is then motivated to act on it. Bandura’s work on observational

learning and modeling provides insights into social role acquisition and the nature of

mentoring (Merriam et al, 2007). People can learn from imitating others, hence the

importance and value of role models and mentoring (Marquardt and Waddill, 2004).

10
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

In the 70s and 80s, Bandura focused on the notion of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as

an individual’s belief in their personal capacity to accomplish a job or a specific set of tasks

(Bandura, 1977). According to Bandura, our personal levels of self-efficacy are believed to

impact our daily social interactions in almost every way (Bandura 1977, 1994).

Individuals with high self-efficacy for a certain task are more likely than those with lower

self-efficacy to pursue and persist in that task. Bandura posits that there are four major

sources of self-efficacy: mastery experiences, social modeling, social persuasion and

psychological responses (Bandura, 1994). The most effective way of developing a strong

sense of efficacy is through mastery experiences. When we perform a task successfully, our

sense of self-efficacy is strengthened. But observing others (who we consider similar to

ourselves) succeed through sustained effort can also raise our beliefs that we also possess

the capabilities to perform comparable activities successfully (Bandura, 1994). A testament

to the importance of the self-efficacy concept is its prevalence in contemporary training and

development activities in organizations, as well as in employee socialization and on-the-job

training (Merriam et al, 2007). One of the criticisms of social learning perspective more

generally however is that it ignores the role of choice for the individual and it is based, to

some extent, on a masquerade (Torrington, Hall and Taylor, 2005).

The Constructivist Perspective

Similar to the preceding theories, constructivism encompasses a number of related

perspectives. Various different strands of constructivist work have been identified, reflecting

conceptual borrowings from von Glaserfeld, Kant, Kuhn, Piaget and Dewey as well as

feminist theorizing on knowledge construction (Merriam et al, 2007). Constructivism may be

seen as a development of the cognitivist perspective although it differs in that it fails to regard

learning as a neutral process. Rather it is an individual’s perception of experience that counts;

11
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

there is no ‘objective’ view (Torrington, Hall and Taylor, 2005). Learning is a process of

constructing meaning; it is how people make sense of their experience (Merriam et al, 2007).

All strands of constructivism understand learning as an active as opposed to a passive

endeavour (Merriam et al, 2007). All knowledge is context bound and individuals make

personal meaning of their learning experiences through internal construction of reality

(Marquardt and Waddill, 2004). In our dealings with the world we create ‘meaning

structures’ in our heads which are based on past experience and personality (Torrington, Hall

and Taylor, 2005). As humans we are capable of constructing and reconstructing these

meaning structures with or without new experiences. We are generally unaware of the

validity of these meaning sets and they are often deeply held and difficult to change. Learning

is seen to occur through mechanisms such as dialogue, collaborative learning and cooperative

learning (Merriam et al, 2007).

Mezirow’s work on transformational learning (Mezirow 1991; Mezirow and Associates,

2000) may be classified as constructivist in nature (Merriam et al, 2007). Mezirow focuses on

both individual and social construction of meaning. He points to the importance of

considering an individual’s ‘learning history’ and outlined how particular events can

transform an individual’s perspective and hence constitute key learning triggers. The

importance of the individual and their learning journey is paramount: ‘we all have to start

with what we have been given and operate within horizons set by ways of seeing and

understanding that we have acquired through prior learning’ (Mezirow, 1991, p. 1). For

Mezirow, individuals may change their frames of reference by critically reflecting on their

assumptions and consciously making plans to bring about new ways of defining their worlds.

This change is mediated through personal reflection and dialogue with others (Merriam et al,

2007). Constructivists generally emphasize the importance of changing oneself and the

12
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

environment and reflective practice is a key manifestation of this orientation (Marquardt and

Waddill, 2004). However, Mezirow’s theorizing on transformative learning has been

criticized as overtly rationalistic and is said to afford too much importance to critical

reflection (Taylor, 1998).

In the preceding paragraphs, we have tried to give a brief outline of each of the five learning

orientations or paradigms as classified by Merriam and Caffarella (1999). Each orientation

may be thought of as an umbrella paradigm comprised of varying composite theories which

converge as well as diverge on various understandings of the learning process. Few theories

fit neatly into any one classification, and many may cut through several. Table 1 presents a

brief overview of the five learning orientations.

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

METHODOLOGY

Our review began from a cross-disciplinary stance by exploring both entrepreneurship and

education based journals. We selected six leading entrepreneurship journals –

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ET&P); Journal of Business Venturing (JBV); Small

Business Economics (SBE); Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM); International

Small Business Journal (ISBJ); Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (ERD) and two

high impact education reviews – Academy of Management Learning and Education

(AoMLE) and Journal of Management Education (JME). We searched the selected journal

indexes for articles that contained ‘learn’ or ‘learning’ in the abstracts and author supplied

keywords. Article citations were then reviewed and, once we confirmed that they were

empirical, theoretical or essay based articles dealing with issues of learning and

13
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

entrepreneurship, we recorded them in our article database. Once the initial citation database

was developed, we further classified articles according to according to the level of analysis

and the population being studied. For example, under the banner of ‘learning’, articles

address both firm and individual level learning. For the purpose of this paper we concern

ourselves with learning that takes place on an individual level. Of those articles that dealt

with learning and entrepreneurship on an individual level, a further distinction may be made

between those articles that deal with entrepreneurs and their learning and those that address

the issue of students learning for and about entrepreneurship. The final database included 97

articles from our eight selected journals from the period 1991-2011. There were seven stages

within the review methodology employed here and these are outlined in more detail in table

two.

INSERT TABLE TWO ABOUT HERE

The five schools identified by Merriam and Caffarella (1991) served as the basis for this

review. While some researchers draw on more than one learning theory, and some theories

may be said to belong to more than one school or paradigm (Piaget may been seen as both a

constructivist and a cognitivist – depending on your standpoint), the approach taken was to

categorize articles based on the dominant paradigm employed. In the section below, we

present the preliminary findings of this research project.

FINDINGS

All five learning theory paradigms were found to have been (implicitly or explicitly) evoked

in the entrepreneurial learning literature. While in some cases, researchers clearly subscribed

to one dominant learning paradigm, others were much more eclectic in their theoretical

14
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

grounding. Entrepreneurship research drawing on social cognitive and cognitivist learning

theories was found to predominate (60.8% and 49.5% respectively) while the remainder of

research articles in our review drew on behaviourist (24.7%), constructivist (23.7%) and

humanist traditions (14.4%). In the paragraphs which follow, we present how the five

learning theory traditions have been developed in entrepreneurship research.

A Behaviorist Approach to Learning in Entrepreneurship Research

We classified just over one fifth of the articles in our literature review as belonging

(predominantly) to the behaviorist learning paradigm. Given that behaviorism as a learning

theory paradigm was at its most popular in the 60s and 70s, the lower number of behaviorist

inspired articles found in our search (period 1991-2011) is undoubtedly reflective of the

date range of our chosen journal articles. Nevertheless, the imprint of behaviorist thinking

can be seen through the importance given to the entrepreneurs’ environment and the idea of

particular routines or behaviors as being advisable for future entrepreneurs. One example is

the article published by Cooper, Folta and Woo (1995) in the Journal of Business Venturing

which looks at the information search behavior of entrepreneurs. A major influence of

behaviorism has been its support for a view of knowledge as an ‘assembly of specific

responses, a form of knowledge often expressed as detailed behavioral objectives’ (Greeno,

Collins and Resnick, 1996). After examining 1,176 new ventures, Cooper et al (1995)

conclude that entrepreneurs, both experienced and inexperienced would gain from greater

emphasis on gathering and using external information as they enter unfamiliar fields. They

speak of ‘patterns of search’ and ‘routines’ which entrepreneurs should follow (Cooper et

al, 1995, p119). Also in a behaviorist vein, the authors place a strong emphasis on the role

of the environment. The authors recommend that “outside advisors may be helpful in urging

entrepreneurs who engage in unfamiliar domains to engage in more extensive information

15
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

search” (Cooper et al, 1995, p119). They add that the “cognitive schema of entrepreneurs

operating in familiar and unfamiliar domains could be examined” but that issue is not

explored in this particular study. The article by Kaish (1991) in the same review follows a

similar vein in its recommendation of behavioral objectives for entrepreneurship training:

“it may be worthwhile for corporations attempting to encourage intrapreneurship to consider

improving the skills of their executives in regard to opportunity search or creating the

appropriate internal environment to stimulate exposure to a broad spectrum of information

and less traditional sources” (Kaish, 1991, p59).

In their (2004) article, DeTienne and Chandler empirically prove that it is possible to teach

students to identify business opportunities, and more generally, to exhibit higher levels of

innovation, suggesting that “entrepreneurship is not about who the entrepreneur is, but what

the entrepreneur does” (p. 254). Another example is that of Van Gelderen, Van der Sluis and

Jansen (2005) published in Small Business Economics. We do not classify this work as

purely behaviourist - indeed the authors assert that ‘learning is the outcome of both

situational and personal determinants’ (Van Gelderen, Van der Sluis and Jansen, 2005, p97) –

however there is a behaviorist flavor to their writing in that the authors seek to discover

‘which situations offer learning opportunities, and which behaviours small business starters

can employ in order to actually learn from these opportunities’. This approach is in line with

the behavioral learning paradigm which looks for a specific response set of actions in

response to given situations.

In sum, a behaviorist approach to understanding entrepreneurship and learning is evident in

the extent to which many researchers point to a repertoire of behaviours which should be

followed in entrepreneurship. This is perhaps not surprising given Gartner’s widely accepted

16
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

call for entrepreneurship research to concentrate on what entrepreneurs do rather than who

they are (Gartner, 1989).

A Cognitivist Approach to Learning in Entrepreneurship Research

Cognitive learning theories deal with individuals’ planning, problem solving, meta-reflection

and reasoning abilities as well as their prior knowledge, mental structures and motivations

(Greeno, Collins and Resnick, 1996). For cognitivists, learning occurs when humans

reorganize experiences, thereby making sense of input from the environment (Marquardt and

Waddill, 2004). Given the importance of these notions to entrepreneurship, readers will

perhaps not be surprised to see that almost 50% of the articles uncovered in our literature

review could be said to have a strong cognitive learning orientation. One example of research

which is located very much in the cognitive domain, is that conducted by Corbett, Neck and

DeTienne (2007). They look at cognitive scripts used by corporate entrepreneurs involved in

project termination decisions in technology based firms. Their research suggests that

corporate entrepreneurs use different types of termination scripts (undisciplined termination,

strategic termination and innovation drift) and analyze the learning implications during and

after project termination.

Another paper very much in the cognitive learning domain is that by Carsrud. and Brännback

(2011) which attempts to renew interest in the study of entrepreneurial motivation and

heralds this topic as ‘critical to the study of entrepreneurial cognitions, intentions, and their

conversion into entrepreneurial behaviors’ (p.9). The authors lament that ‘the role that an

entrepreneur’s motivations and cognitions play in how they design and set up their new

ventures remains largely unexplored’ (Carsrud and Brannback, 2011, p20). Ardanna and

Scott-Kemmis (2010) also apply a cognitive lens to entrepreneurship and learning. They

17
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

demonstrate how prior experience, the division of (decision-making) labor and the knowledge

characteristic of the venture team influence entrepreneurial learning.

In 2004, DeTienne and Chandler published an article in the Academy of Management

Learning and Education journal which may be classified as having a cognitivist orientation.

Cognitivists focus on how humans learn and understand using internal processes of acquiring,

understanding and retaining knowledge (Marquardt and Waddill, 2004). In this article,

DeTienne and Chandler look at the ‘processes of opportunity identification’ and how

individuals can learn such processes. They investigate a specific pedagogical endeavor in

entrepreneurship education and show how it improved both the number of ideas generated by

students as well as the innovativeness of those ideas. Their article may also be said to reflect

a behaviorist orientation in that the authors conceive of ‘opportunity identification as a

competency that can be developed’ (DeTienne and Chandler, 2004).

A Humanist Approach to Learning in Entrepreneurship Research

In our literature review, we identified 23% of the articles as demonstrating evidence of a

humanist learning orientation. This is largely due to the high number of articles which evoke

Experiential Learning Theory (ELT). ELT is a much cited learning theory in entrepreneurship

research and it may be classified as belonging to the humanist tradition. ELT’s emphasis on

the process of learning as opposed to the behavioral outcomes ‘distinguishes it from the

behavioral theories of learning created by Watson, Hull, Skinner, and others’ (Kolb, 1984, p.

26). In the entrepreneurship literature, there is, there is a common recognition that

entrepreneurs are action-oriented and much of their learning is experientially based (Rae &

Carswell, 2000, 2001; Cope, 2005; Tracey and Philips, 2007). In their 2005 article, Minniti

and Bygrave’s theorizing may be said to be in line with experiential (and thus humanist)

18
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

learning theory as they outline the value of learning through failure. They propose that

entrepreneurs accumulate ‘a subjective stock of knowledge’ building on past experiences and

argue that entrepreneurs repeat ‘only those choices that appear most promising and discard

the ones that resulted in failure’ (Minniti and Bygrave, 2005, p5). Their theorizing ties in with

the humanist view of learning for development and growth. Corbett (2007) also evoked

Kolb’s (1984) ELT. His research showed how learning asymmetries among people (the

different way in which we acquire and transform information) account for important

variations in the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. More recently, Pittaway,

Rodriguez-Falcon, Aiyegbayo and King (2011) demonstrate how students’ engagement in

clubs and societies provides enhanced opportunities for ‘learning by doing’ through action

and experience. In line with humanistic ideas of personal development, their data showed that

increased action of students led to reflective practice which they concluded as proof of

‘entrepreneurial learning’ having taken place. Indeed many entrepreneurship researchers

advocate for the incorporation of an experiential component into entrepreneurship education

and training programs (Corbett, 2005; Tracey and Philips, 2007; Mustar, 2009).

Another distinctive feature of learning theories within the humanist tradition is their

recognition that emotions and cognition play a part in the learning process. There is some

evidence that emotions and the role they place in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial

learning are gaining credence. Shepherd’s (2004) article in Academy of Management

Learning and Education proposed entrepreneurship education programs which help students

‘manage the emotions of learning from failure’ and is very much in line with this humanist

view. Shepherd (2004) suggests that learning from business failure requires that educators

move beyond the cognitive dimension of entrepreneurship (i.e., how or what entrepreneurs

“think”), and explore the emotional relationship that exists between entrepreneurs and their

19
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

businesses. Shepherd later elaborated on some of these ideas in his 2009 article in JBV which

discusses the notion of grief management and its implications for corporate entrepreneurs.

Research completed by Souitaris, Zerbinati and Al-Laham (2007) allows recognizes the

importance of emotion in entrepreneurship. Their article in the Journal of Business Venturing

points to the important role which passion and inspiration can play in changing student

perceptions of entrepreneurs.

In the humanist learning theory tradition, the process of learning is centred on the learner.

Indeed the process is seen as more important than the content; therefore, when educators are

involved in the learning process, their role is to act as facilitators (Merriam et al, 2007). In

this line, Shepherd encourages entrepreneurship educators to choose and use simulations

which evoke student emotions about failure experiences. It is the educators who set up the

learning and the student participants who effectively provide the content. Tracey and Philips

(2007) recommend that facilitators organize ‘social enterprise consulting projects for groups

of interested students, where students are required to act as consultants to a new social

venture’ (Tracey and Philips, 2007, p269). Once again, integrating such project work into the

class room shifts the responsibility from the professor to the student (see also Mustar, 2009).

A Social Learning Theory Approach to Learning in Entrepreneurship Research

In his (2005) Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice article on entrepreneurial learning, Cope

poses numerous questions. Among them: “To what extent are individuals triggered to start a

small business as a result of social learning?” (Cope, 2005, p390) and “To what extent is

reflection a social process for entrepreneurs? (Cope, 2005, p391). Indeed the role played by

social learning in entrepreneurship is a hotly debated topic. Over 60% of the articles in our

literature review drew on social learning theory. We found that entrepreneurship research

20
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

tends to address either one of three social learning related concepts: 1) self-efficacy, 2)

networks and 3) vicarious learning.

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy has been proven to be a particularly important antecedent to

entrepreneurial behaviour (Barbosa, Gerhardt and Kickul, 2007). Indeed a growing number of

studies on entrepreneurial behaviour, intentions and motivation include self-efficacy as a key

explanatory variable (McGee, Peterson, Mueller and Sequeira, 2009). Much of the research

investigates self-efficacy in the context of entrepreneurship education (examples Wilson et al,

2007; Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud, 2000) and researchers

operationalize entrepreneurial self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in their ability to launch a

venture, run their own business or be self-employed (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003). In line

with social learning theory thinking on the endurance of the meaning structures which we

‘carry around in our heads’ (Torrington et al, 2005), ESE has been found to be a moderately

stable belief which requires ‘continuous and systematic efforts’ to be changed (Chen, Greene

and Crick, 1998). Entrepreneurship education programs have been found to have a strong

measurable impact on perceived behavioral control (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993) – a notion

that appears to run close to self-efficacy. A well designed entrepreneurship program should

give the student a realistic sense of what it takes to start a business as well as raising the

students’ self-confidence levels (Wilson et al, 2007).

Another predominant research theme which resonates with the social learning theory

paradigm is entrepreneurial networks. In 1993, Tjosvold and Weicker published an article

looking at how and why entrepreneurs use networks. They concluded that entrepreneurs use

their networks to learn and discover new ideas, alter their business plans, develop revenues,

and gain support to increase their motivation. Their evidence suggests that cooperative goals

21
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

and interaction contribute to the effective use of the network (Tjosvold and Weicker, 1993).

The extent to which men and women access information (and learn) through networks has

also been considered. In their (1990) article, Scherer, Brodzinski and Wiebe showed how

women and men’s differing social experiences inhibit or stimulate the decision to set out on a

career in entrepreneurship. In line with social learning theory ideals, they suggested that

entrepreneurship mentoring programs for women be used to raise career entry expectations

and encourage confidence in the personal abilities required for successful venture creation

and management. More recently, emphasis has been placed on entrepreneurial networks as

“learning systems” (Mäkinen, 2002). In their article, Mosey and Wright (2007) suggest that

entrepreneurs with prior business ownership experience have broader social networks and are

more effective in developing network ties. Less experienced entrepreneurs are more likely to

encounter structural holes between their scientific research networks and industry networks.

However, while our literature review points to a certain preoccupation with entrepreneurial

networks, Cope (2005) calls for more empirical work to identify the distinctive forms of

learning that arise from the entrepreneur’s engagement in social relationships, both inside and

outside the venture.

Numerous researchers refer to the value of vicarious learning in entrepreneurship. Vicarious

learning, also referred to as observational learning, involves modeling the behaviors and

actions of others (Bandura, 1977). Effective learning through vicarious means teaches people

general rules and strategies for approaching new situations (Wood & Bandura, 1989).

Holcomb et al (2009) propose that entrepreneurs, in particular, can benefit by applying the

rules and adjusting them to fit uncertain and novel circumstances. They posit that

entrepreneurs are likely to adopt modeled strategies if they produce valued outcomes (e.g.,

the successful launch of a new venture), rather than negative results (e.g., the failed launch of

22
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

a new venture). Holcomb et al (2009) warn that entrepreneurs employ information processing

tactics to impose meaning on newly acquired information, creating potential inefficiencies in

the learning process which bias knowledge. Mungai and Valamuri (2009) also evoke social

learning theory and the importance of role models. Their study shows how parental influence

may not exist in the case of parents’ economic failure in self-employment, and, that when it

does occur, it is more pronounced when the offspring is a young adult.

A Constructivist Approach to Learning in Entrepreneurship Research

Approximately 23% of the articles in our literature review drew on one or more constructivist

learning theories. Numerous researchers in our sample explicitly acknowledge their

constructivist roots. In Bruyat’s (2001) article, the author sets out to understand the

phenomenon of entrepreneurship considering ‘the individual (the entrepreneur), the project,

the environment and also the links between them over time’. Bruyat’s research reflects

constructivist assumptions as he depicts the entrepreneur as more than ‘a blind machine

responding automatically to environmental stimuli’ but rather ‘a human being capable of

creating, learning and influencing the environment’(Bruyat, 2001, p165). In a more recent

article, Karataş-Özkan (2011) adopts a social constructionist approach and shows how

‘relational qualities of entrepreneurial learning can be illuminated by exploring dispositions

and different forms of capital that nascent entrepreneurs hold at the micro-individual level’.

These different forms of capital are inextricably linked to the meso-relational level of

developing an entrepreneurial habitus as they navigate through the process of business

venturing (Karataş-Özkan, 2011, p877).

Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning which has constructivist roots can also be found

in entrepreneurship research. At the core of transformative learning is the idea of perspective

23
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

transformation. The notions of perspective transformation and transformative learning have

thus far been tentatively investigated in entrepreneurship research (see Cope, 2003).

Transformative learning is the expansion of consciousness through the transformation of

basic worldview and specific capacities of the self (Elias, 1997). Cope proposes that critical

events can trigger transformative learning outcomes for entrepreneurs (Cope, 2003; Cope,

2005). Cope’s (2011) JBV article discusses this notion of learning from failure and outlines

how entrepreneurs learn much about themselves and the demise of their ventures but also

much about the nature of networks and relationships and the “pressure points” of venture

management – thus embracing the humanist ideas of growth and development.

Another emergent stream of literature in entrepreneurship research is that of feminist

theorizing. As mentioned in the previous section, feminist theorizing on knowledge

construction is one particular strand of constructivist research. In her (2007) Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice article, Helena Ahl acknowledges ‘the social construction of reality’ and

maintains that gender is performed rather than an essential quality attached to male and

female bodies. Her analysis finds that certain teaching materials in entrepreneurship may

reproduce discriminatory gender relations and may ‘teach women that there is no place for

them in business’. In true social constructivist style, Ahl (2007) makes numerous suggestions

for improvement in entrepreneurship education such as including more cases with female

protagonists, using gender-inclusive language and stories that challenge received

entrepreneurship ideas, as well as introducing narrative analysis to enrich students’ learning

opportunities.

24
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

DISCUSSION

In this study, we used Merriam and Caffarella’s (1999) ‘learning orientation’ model to

structure our literature review and gauge the extent to which different learning paradigms

prevail in entrepreneurship research. In line with Cope (2005), we believe that applying ‘a

learning lens’ to research in entrepreneurship can hold promising results (Cope, 2005).

Merriam and Caffarella’s (1999) ‘learning orientation’ model illustrates the evolution of

theory in psychology and education science over the last 50 years. To a certain extent

research on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial leanring reflects these same trends. We do

not wish to compare or evaluate the relative merits of each learning paradigm but rather

contend that the behaviourist, humanist, (social) cognitivist and constructivist learning

paradigms all serve as useful lenses for understanding entrepreneurship and the learning.

In this paper, we have shown how over 60% of the literature draws on theory from the social

learning theory paradigm. Of all the learning theory paradigms, this appears to be the

perspective which is has been most often integrated to entrepreneurship research, with

authors drawing on previous extant research by Albert Bandura, the father of social learning

theory. While much ado has been made of the issue of self-efficacy however,

entrepreneurship research still needs to uncover more in the areas of vicarious learning and

network use. Cope (2005) reminds us that more research is needed concerning the social

aspect of entrepreneurship preparedness. The second most commonly drawn upon theoretical

paradigm in entrepreneurship research is that of the cognitivist perspective. The application

of ideas and concepts from cognitive science has gained currency within entrepreneurship

research, as evidenced by the growing accumulation of successful studies framed in

entrepreneurial cognition terms (Mitchell, Busenitz, Lant, McDougall, Morse and Smith,

2002). The remaining perspectives –behaviorist, humanist and constructivist - are much less

25
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

prevalent in entrepreneurship research. However, the growing interest in emotions and the

affective dimensions of entrepreneurship as well as a growing adoption of constructivist

thinking are likely to see an increase in the adoption of these latter two learning paradigms.

While we adopted and followed an agreed protocol with respect to learning theory

classification, both researchers acknowledge that attributing the various research studies to

one of the five learning theory paradigms was a difficult task. Few research studies fit neatly

into any one classification, and many may cut through several. Nevertheless, we believe that

using this typology helps organize the emerging study of entrepreneurial learning and helps

situate individual learning in relation to broader entrepreneurship practices. As Cope (2005)

maintained, it is only by continuing to study the nature of entrepreneurship both during and

post start-up that a comprehensive understanding of entrepreneurial learning can be

developed.

In his much cited (2005) article on entrepreneurial learning, Jason Cope also attested to the

benefits of applying a learning lens to entrepreneurship. However, as this paper

demonstrates, the learning lens itself comes in many shapes and sizes. The behaviorist,

cognitivist, humanist, social learning and constructivist approaches all offer varying insights

into the study of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning. We believe that looking at

entrepreneurial learning with these varying lenses enlightens our understanding of the

phenomenon. Just as our vision of the same object sharpens and blurs, clears and fades,

lightens and darkens as an optician changes the strength, shape and intensity of a lens during

an eye examination, our understanding of entrepreneurial learning is altered depending on the

theoretical approach which is applied. These varying perspectives allow us to more clearly

26
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

identify and explore the complexity of entrepreneurial action, as the central figure, the

individual, (inter)acts with(in) his or her environmenti. In our study, we identified that the

large majority of articles (92%) dealing with entrepreneurial learning drew on a model,

theory or concept associated with one of these five learning theory paradigms. If the

application of Merriem and Caffarella’s (1999) learning theory classification to

entrepreneurship research shows how entrepreneurial learning can (and has) be(en) viewed

from varying perspectives, we pose the following important question : what can we learn

from applying these theories that renders intelligible and exploitable take-aways? In the

paragraphs below, we try to answer this question by looking at the unifying concept of

critical thinking.

Entrepreneurship research is yet to reveal and converge upon a dominant theoretical

paradigm. Thus it is perhaps no wonder that our understanding of entrepreneurial learning

remains out of reach. Rendering entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning more

intelligible depends to a large extent on our common understanding of the phenomenon.

However while our grasp of entrepreneurship remains elusive, the real world context in

which entrepreneurial learning occurs is beset by one constant – change. Action, adaption

and uncertainty prevail in the entrepreneur’s daily world. Over the last twenty years,

researchers have increasingly examined the knowledge, attitudes, behaviour, competencies

and emotions of the entrepreneur (what does the entrepreneur do? how does the entrepreneur

feel, think, perceive and construct? With whom?). Cope (2005) has called for a ‘dynamic’

understanding of entrepreneurial learning which encompasses these questions and

contextualizes them.

As we have shown, the most prevalent learning theories applied over the last twenty years in

entrepreneurship research emerge from the cognitive and social cognitive learning paradigms.

27
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

The large majority of these studies focus in particular on attitudes and competencies. In the

complexity of a changing world, the entrepreneur is forced to mobilize his/her internal

(cognitive) and external (social) resources to produce the necessary competencies and

attitudes to adapt and problem solve. In this context, learning theories (especially those which

have emerged over the last ten years) contribute to the development of a pedagogy of critical

thinking (Ennis, 1995). The entrepreneur is, above all, a critical thinker : an individual who,

in an unstable and uncertain environment, must mobilize himself to critically appraise a

situation and make a value judgement. It is this value judgment or appraisal which

determines the nature of the final decision and constitutes the resulting entrepreneurial action.

Developing a critical thinking attitude or mindset while mobilizing knowledge (savoir) and

know-how (savoir-faire) is a pre-requisite for critical entrepreneurial thinking. In general, a

critical thinker must not only be able to adequately evaluate but also must have the tendency

to do so, to be critically pre-disposed to evaluate (Boisvert, 1999).

Critical entrepreneurial thinking thus requires knowledge and know how specific to

entrepreneurship. The more knowledge and know-how which the individual possesses, the

better the entrepreneur’s capability to critically consider the composite elements of the

situation, his or her thoughts, feelings, knowledge and desired objectives. Behaviourist,

cognitivist, humanist, social cognitivist and constructivist learning approaches assist in

identifying these key components of critical thinking for entrepreneurship. In a learning

context, such theories may be transformed in tools for understanding. By applying each lens,

the learner becomes more aware of the complexity of entrepreneurship as well as the benefit

of connecting their knowledge products or insights. For example, discovering and

understanding the role that emotion plays in entrepreneurship entails a consideration of the

cognitive dimension of the entrepreneur and his/her actions. In turn, this also entails a

28
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

consideration of what emotion provokes. It also entails learning to become conscious of one’s

emotions (and learning how to use them) and their role in conditioning one’s entrepreneurial

actions.

In line with critical thinking pedagogy, we thus propose that applying learning theories to

entrepreneurship yields for a multi-dimensional view of entrepreneurial action. They could

be actively used in the classroom or by the small business coach to provoke a critical

approach to entrepreneurial action, decision making and learning. By giving students and

entrepreneurs a tool for reflection, and researchers an explicit learning theory anchor, these

theories help enlighten scholars and entrepreneurs alike.

29
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 1–63.

Ahl H. (2007), Sex business in the toy store: A narrative analysis of a teaching case. Journal
of Business Venturing, 22(5), 673-693.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

behavior,4. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71-81.

Béchard, J.-P., and Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship education research revisited: The
case of higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1): 22-
43.

Bruyat C., Julien P.A. (2001), Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16(2), 165.

Bygrave W. D. (1989), The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (II): Chaos and Catastrophes among
Quantum Jumps? Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 14(2) : 7-30.

Casrud A., Brännback M. (2011), Entrepreneurial Motivations: What Do We Still Need to

Know? Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 9-26.

Chaston I., Badger B. and Sadler-Smith E., (2001) Organizational Learning: An Empirical
Assessment of Process in Small U.K Manufacturing Firms, Joumal of Small Business
Management, 39(2), 139-151.

Chen C. C., Greene P. G., Crick A. (1998), Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish...
Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295.

Cooper A., Folta T. B., Woo C. (1995), Entrepreneurial information search. Journal of
Business Venturing, 10(2), 107.

Cope J. (2003), Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 34(4), 429-450.

Cope J. (2005), Toward a Dynamic Learning Perspective of Entrepreneurship,

Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(4) : 373-397.

Cope J. (2011), Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological

analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 604-623.

Corbett A. (2005), Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and
exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19(4), 473-491.

30
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

Corbett A. (2007), The Conflicting Cognitions of Corporate Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 31(1) : 103-121.

Corbett A., Neck H. M., Detienne D. R. (2007), How Corporate Entrepreneurs Learn from
Fledgling Innovation Initiatives: Cognition and the Development of a Termination
Script. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6) : 829-852.

Detienne D.R., Chandler G. N. (2004), Opportunity Identification and Its Role in the
Entrepreneurial Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach and Empirical Test. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 242-257.

Elias, D. (1997), It’s time to change our minds: An introduction to transformative learning.
ReVision, 20(1).

Gartner W. B. (1989), “Who is an entrepreneur?” Is a wrong question. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 13(14).

Greeno J., Collins A. and Resnick L. (1996) Cognition and Learning in D. C Berliner and R.
C. Calfee (Eds) Handbook of Educational Pyscholgy, (pp. 15-46). New York:
MacMillan.

Harrison R., Leicht T. (2005), Entrepreneurial Learning: Researching the Interface Between
Learning and the Entrepreneurial Context. Entrepreneurship theory and practice
29(4): 351-371.

Holcomb T.R., Ireland R.D., Holmes M., Hitt M.A. (2009), Architecture of Entrepreneurial
Learning: Exploring the Link Among Heuristics, Knowledge, and Action,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 167.

Holman B. (1997), Young people face discouragement. Masthead, 49(2).

Honig, B. (2001). Learning strategies and resources for entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(1), 21–35.

Kailer N. (2009), Entrepreneurship education : empirical findings and proposals for the
design of entrepreneurship education concepts at universities in german-speaking
coutries. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 17(2), 201-231.

Kaish S. (1991), Characteristics of Opportunities Search of Entrepreneurs Versus Executives:

Sources, Interests, General Alertness. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(1), 45.

Karataş-Özkan M. (2011), Understanding relational qualities of entrepreneurial learning:

Towards a multi-layered approach. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23
(9/10), 877-906.

31
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

Kayes D. C. (2002), Experiential Learning and Its Critics: Preserving the Role of Experience
in Management Learning and Education. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 1(2), 137-149.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Krueger N.F., Carsrud A.L. (1993), Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of
planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,5, 315-330.

Krueger N., Reilly M. and Carsrud A. (2000) Competing models of entrepreneurial

intentions, Journal of Business Venturing, 15 (5-6), p 411-432.

Leonard D. (2002). Learning Theories A to Z. Westport, CT, Greenwood Publishing Group,

Inc.

Marquardt M. & Waddill D. (2004): The power of learning in action learning: a conceptual
analysis of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the
practice of action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1 (2), 185-202.

Mc Gee J. E., Peterson M., Mueller S., Sequeira J. M. (2009), Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy:
Refining the Measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 965-988.

McKenna, J. (1992) Learning in adulthood by Sharon B. Merriam and Rosemary S.

Caffarella, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 26(1), 207.

Merriam, S. B. & Caffarella, R. S. (1999) Learning in adulthood (2nd edn) San Francisco,
CA, Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Minniti, M. & Bygrave, W. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(3), 5–16.

Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A. and Smith, J. B.
(2002), Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Cognition: Rethinking the People Side of
Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27: 93–104

Mosey S., Wright M. (2007), From Human Capital to Social Capital: A Longitudinal Study
of Technology-Based Academic Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 31(6), 909-935.

Mungai E. and Velamuri R. (2009), Parental Entrepreneurial Role Model Influence on Male
Offspring: Is It Always Positive and When Does It Occur? Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 337-357

32
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

Mustar P. (2009), Technology Management Education: Innovation and Entrepreneurship at

MINES ParisTech, a Leading French Engineering School. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 8(3), 418-425.

Parker, S.C. (2006). Learning about the unknown: How fast do entrepreneurs adjust their
beliefs? Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1), 1–26.

Peterman N. E., Kennedy J., Enterprise Education: Influencing Students' Perceptions of

Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129–144.

Pittaway L., Cope J. (2007), “Simulating entrepreneurial learning”, Management Learning,

38 (2), 211-233.

Pittaway L., Rodriguez-Falcon E., Aiyegbayo O., King A. (2011), The role of
entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning. International Small
Business Journal, 29(1), 37-57.

Rae, D. & Carswell, M. (2000). Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial

learning: the development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of
learning experiences. Education and Training, 42(4/5), 220–228.

Rae, D. & Carswell, M. (2001). Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial

learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 8(2), 150–158.
Rae D. (2006), Entrepreneurial learning : a conceptual framework for technology-based
enterprise. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(1), 39-56.

Reuber R., Fischer E. (1993), A Theoretical Overview and Extension of Research on Sex,
Gender, and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151.

Sardana D. and Scott-Kemmis D. (2010), Who Learns What?—A Study Based on

Entrepreneurs from Biotechnology New Ventures, Journal of Small Business
Management, 48(3), 441–468.

Shepherd D. A. (2004), Educating Entrepreneurship Students About Emotion and Learning

From Failure. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3),274-287.

Scherer, R, J Brodzinski and FA Wiebe (1990). Entrepreneurship career selection and gender:
A Socialization approach. Journal of Small Business Management, 28(2), 37–44.

Smilor R. (1997), Entrepreneurship : reflections on a subversive activity. Journal of business

Venturing, 12(5), 341.

Suitaris V., Zerbinati S., Al-Laham A. (2007), Do entrepreneurship programmes raise

entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning,
inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 566-591.

Taylor, Edward W. The Theory and Practice of Transformative Learning: A Critical Review.
Information Series no. 374. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and
Vocational Education, Center on Education and Training for Employment, College of
Education, the Ohio State University, 1998.

33
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

Tjosvold D., Weicker D. (1993), Cooperative and competitive networking by entrepreneurs :

a critical incident study. Journal of Small Business Management, 31(1), 11-21

Tracey P. and Phillips N. (2007) The Distinctive Challenge of Educating Social

Entrepreneurs: A Postscript and Rejoinder to the Special Issue on Entrepreneurship
Education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6 (2), 264-271

Van Gelderen M., Van der Sluis L., Jansen P. (2005), Learning Opportunities and Learning
Behaviours of Small Business Starters: Relations with Goal Achievement, Skill
Development and Satisfaction. Small Business Economics, 25(1), 97-108.

Vince, R. 1998. Behind and beyond Kolb's learning cycle, Journal of Management Education,
22, 304-319.

Wilson, F, Kickum J and Marlino D (2007) Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and

entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practive, 31(3), 387-406.

Wood R., Bandura A. (1989), Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management.

Academy of management review, 14(3), 361-384.

34
Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain
Behaviourist
Key theorists Thorndike; Skinner; Pavlov
Learning is ...observable changes in
about.... behaviour. Humans respond
to stimuli in environment. It is
the environment which shapes
human behaviour
Locus of learning Stimuli in external
environment
Keywords and Skill and competence
concepts development
Reinforcement
Contiguity
Operant conditioning
On the job performance
Popular approach in Human
Resource Development (HRD)
and vocational training
Table 1: Five Learning Theory Orientations
(adapted from Merriam et al, 2007)
Humanist
Maslow; Rodgers
..human potential and self-
actualisation. Learning
constitutes a personal act to
fulfil development , it
involves individual growth
& ‘whole person’
development
Affective and
cognitive needs
Human nature
Emotions and affect
Self-directed learning;
control destiny
Motivation (to learn)
Choice and responsibility
Autonomous
Perspective transformation
Cognitivist
Piaget; Kohler; Lewin
...the acquisition of new
information, information
processing, problem solving
and insight. The locus of
control over learning lies
within the individual
Internal cognitive structuring
Prior knowledge; meta-
cognition; perception;
expertise and memory
important
Cognitive structures and
learner’s worldview;
learning style; learning how
to learn
Cognition and culture
Artificial intelligence
Gestalt Psychology
influence
Social Learning/ Social Constructivist
Cognitive
Bandura; Rotter; Saloman; Dewey; Piaget; Rogoff;
Piaget Candy; Vygotsky
...interaction with, and ..making sense of
observation of, others in a experience. Meaning is
social context. made by the individual
and constitutes changes
in their knowledge
structures
Interaction of persons, Internal construction of
behaviour and reality by individual
environment
Vicarious learning Meaning making
Self-regulation Knowledge and
experience
Models; behaviour modeling
Cognitive conflict
Expectancy
Group discussion and
Reinforcement collaboration; shared
problems and tasks
Self-efficacy
Knowledge
Situated learning, communities construction
of practice; distributed cognition
Co- construction
Employee socialisation; on-
the-job training
35
 Academy of Management Conference, 2012
Janice Byrne and Olivier Toutain

Table 2: Literature Review Methodology

Stage Description

Stage 1 The researchers selected six leading entrepreneurship journals and two leading management education journals
using the British Association of Business Schools (ABS) Ranking 2010; the Financial Times 45 Ranking 2010
and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 2011 to identify highly ranked journals.
Stage 2 The citation indexes of the six entrepreneurship journals from 1991-2011 were systematically searched using the
root term ‘learn*’. The citation indexes of the two management education journals from the period 1991-2011
were systematically searched using the root term ‘entrepre*’.
Stage 3 The data were‘cleaned’ as book reviews, interviews and editorial notes were excluded. As were other articles
which were not relevant to the research i.e. some abstracts contained the word ‘learn’ but did not look at learning
per se. A total 229 articles were saved and filed according to the journal source on a shared platform which both
researchers had access to.
Stage 4 A database of all relevant article abstracts was created and additional information such as the article title, its
author(s) details, the journal and the year of publication were recorded.

Stage 5 Abstracts and articles were then read and analysed. Two additional columns were added to the database to
further classify articles according to 1) their level of analysis (individual, firm, regional, national) and 2) their key
concepts and theoretical grounding. For the purpose of this research project, the researchers focused on those
articles which were concerned with individual learning. A total of 97 articles dealt with learning and
entpreneurship on an individual level were identified.
Stage 6 The researchers then differentiated articles which dealt with entrepreneurs’ learning (60) and those which dealt
with students learning (34).

Stage 7 Further coding was then carried out using Merriam and Cafffarella’s (1999) learning perspective model to
categorize the explicit or implicit paradigms adhered to by researchers. .A table was created which gave a
breakdown of key words and concepts associated with each learning perspective. which was used as a common
frame of reference for both researchers for coding purposes. Where sufficient evidence was not provided in the
abstract, the researchers consulted the full articles to identify the dominant perspective.

i
We include these brackets to allow for the pure cognitive theorist who doesn’t consider environment
interaction in their theorizing

36

View publication stats