Research Article

Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy

University-Based 0(0) 1–26

! The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
Education and the sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2515127418788893
Formation of journals.sagepub.com/home/eex

Entrepreneurial
Capabilities

Younggeun Lee1, Patrick M. Kreiser1 ,

Alex H. Wrede2, and Sanvisna Kogelen2

Abstract
In this study, we examine the influence of university-based education on students’
entrepreneurial capabilities. While the prevalence of entrepreneurship education is
dramatically increasing worldwide, the education that business and engineering stu-
dents receive throughout their academic experience wields a direct influence on
several entrepreneurial capabilities. The purpose of this study is to measure these
educational influences on three specific entrepreneurial capabilities—networking
skill, proactiveness, and self-confidence. Moreover, we aim to raise awareness for
faculty and students in these various programs as they form networks and optimize
the knowledge obtained throughout their education. We test the hypotheses using
data collected from 927 university students. Advice for policy makers, university
students, and their respective educational departments is further discussed.

Keywords
entrepreneurship education, university education, entrepreneurial capabilities,
networking, proactiveness, self-confidence

1
Ivy College of Business, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
2
College of Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Patrick M. Kreiser, Ivy College of Business, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Email: pkreiser@iastate.edu
2 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

Introduction
Entrepreneurship has long been recognized as a primary driver of economic
development and growth (e.g., Birch, 1987; Kuratko, 2006). As recognition of
the value of entrepreneurship has flourished around the world, it has continued
to gain legitimacy as an established academic field, and entrepreneurial educa-
tion has gained stature globally in terms of quality and quantity of programs
and curriculum (Jones, Penaluna, & Pittaway, 2014; Kuratko & Morris, 2018b;
Morris & Liguori, 2016; Vanevenhoven, 2013). Moreover, there have been sig-
nificant increases in the number of entrepreneurship-related courses offered by
diverse departments, colleges, and universities (Finkle, Kuratko, & Goldsby,
2006; Winkel, 2013). In schools of business and engineering, among others,
entrepreneurship education has received significant attention as a critical area
of study (Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005; Morris, Kuratko, & Cornwall, 2013;
Solomon, Duffy, & Tarabishy, 2002).
An emerging trend ‘‘in most universities is to . . . design unique and challen-
ging curricula specifically designed for entrepreneurship’’ (Kuratko & Morris,
2018b, p. 13). Extending the assumption that entrepreneurship and entrepre-
neurial skills can be taught and learned (Drucker, 1985; Gorman, Hanlon, &
King, 1997; Kuratko, 2005, 2006; Winkel, 2013), education embracing entrepre-
neurship-focused topics has been theorized as a determinant of entrepreneurial
behaviors, skills, and mind-sets among students (Kuratko & Morris, 2018b;
Neck & Corbett, 2018). Moreover, scholars have emphasized the influence of
education on the development of valuable entrepreneurial skills among college
students in complementing and reinforcing their knowledge related to functional
disciplines such as engineering and science (Winkler, Troudt, Schweikert, &
Schulman, 2015). As such, education provides opportunities for students to
nurture their entrepreneurial capabilities (Winkel, 2013).
To meet this imperative, universities have started to develop entrepreneurship
education using interdisciplinary methods (Katz, Roberts, Strom, & Freilich,
2014; Morris, Kuratko, & Pryor, 2014; Winkler et al., 2015), and diverse peda-
gogical methods have been proposed. For instance, Neck and Greene (2011)
suggested a portfolio of practice-based pedagogy when teaching entrepreneur-
ship that may help students to ‘‘understand, develop, and practice the skills and
techniques needed for productive entrepreneurship’’ (p. 61). Also, Pittaway
(2009) examined the role of inquiry-based pedagogy on teaching entrepreneur-
ship to science and engineering students. Moreover, a growing number of non-
business departments are providing entrepreneurship-related courses and topics
to their students (Shinnar, Pruett, & Toney, 2009). Recently, scholars have
reinforced the ability of cocurricular programs in engineering in helping to cul-
tivate entrepreneurship and innovation skills (De Hoyos-Ruperto, Pomales-
Garcı́a, Padovani, & Suárez, 2017).
Previous studies have suggested that these various types of education can
serve to facilitate entrepreneurial outputs (e.g., Bae, Qian, Miao, & Fiet, 2014;
Lee et al. 3

Kuratko, 2005; Neck & Greene, 2011). Yet, while researchers have continuously
asserted the advantages and importance of entrepreneurship pedagogy, there
have been contradictory findings regarding the outcomes of teaching entrepre-
neurship (Martin, McNally, & Kay, 2013; Walter & Block, 2016). Most studies
support a positive relationship between entrepreneurship education and key
entrepreneurial outcomes (e.g., Rauch & Hulsink, 2015; Sánchez, 2013;
Souitaris, Zerbinati, & Al-Laham, 2007; Walter, Parboteeah, & Walter, 2013),
but there are also scholars who suggest potentially negative aspects of entrepre-
neurship education such as decreases in entrepreneurial intentions (e.g.,
Oosterbeek, Van Praag, & Ijsselstein, 2010; Von Graevenitz, Harhoff, &
Weber, 2010). Explaining these contradicting views, Vanevenhoven (2013)
called for further studies on entrepreneurship education outcomes in numerous
contexts to create a more in-depth understanding of the educational process.
Pittaway and Cope (2007) highlighted gaps and suggested further research on
the impact of education on entrepreneurial capabilities of students beyond their
propensity or intentionality. Fayolle (2013) called for pedagogical research
focusing on the development of entrepreneurial competences.
In this study, we investigate the relationship between university-based educa-
tion provided via diverse departments and the development of students’ entre-
preneurial capabilities. Extending the literature on entrepreneurial skills and
competencies (Johannisson, 1991; Kuratko & Morris, 2018b; Morris et al.,
2013), we define entrepreneurial capabilities as the set of behavioral tendencies
that leverage an individual to develop and cultivate the ability to achieve success
in entrepreneurship. We develop theoretical arguments underscoring the manner
through which entrepreneurial education directly influences entrepreneurial
capabilities. Cognitive psychologists have suggested that cognitions include per-
ceptions of prior knowledge, beliefs, and expectations (e.g., Smith & Kosslyn,
2008). Path dependency explains the connection between knowledge attained
from education and capabilities on entrepreneurship as ‘‘prior experiences
(e.g., education) shape new perceptions (toward entrepreneurship), which then
become part of the experience base for subsequent perceptual activity’’ (Helfat &
Peteraf, 2015, p. 838). In this context, we assert that students who have been
exposed to education about entrepreneurship will ‘‘perceive information within
the domain of their expertise (e.g., entrepreneurship) more accurately and
quickly’’ than students who have not been exposed to such practices (Helfat &
Peteraf, 2015, p. 839).
In so doing, we aim to answer three primary research questions related to
university-based education and the formation of students’ entrepreneurial cap-
abilities: (a) How do educational departments related to both business and
engineering influence entrepreneurial capabilities in their students, respectively?
This leads to a corollary research question that we also seek to answer: (b) How
does overall university-based education impact the students’ level of entrepre-
neurial capabilities? Even though students from different departments are taught
4 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

unique discipline-specific skills, students who possess higher levels of entrepre-

neurial intent might have more energy, passion, and incentive to fully grasp the
pieces of their respective curriculum that enhances entrepreneurial capabilities.
Therefore, we also aim to answer the following research question: (c) How does
students’ intentions to start a future business influence their level of entrepre-
neurial capabilities?
Taken together, these three research questions represent pertinent areas of
inquiry given that the impact of curriculum and program development on peda-
gogical and practical effectiveness has not been thoroughly studied (Winkler,
2014). Also, a specific pedagogical approach may influence engineering students’
entrepreneurial skills (Pittaway, 2009). Therefore, we develop hypotheses based
on a specific investigation of business and engineering curriculums to understand
in-depth mechanisms toward the development of entrepreneurial capabilities.
We test our hypotheses using data collected from 927 university students at a
large Midwestern university in the United States. Moreover, this study offers
implications to multiple stakeholders of university education (i.e., students, fac-
ulty, administrators, and policy makers) by discussing the role of university-
based education on the formation of students’ entrepreneurial capabilities.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Shane and Venkatraman (2000) defined entrepreneurship as ‘‘the scholarly
examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create
future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited’’ (p. 218).
For an entrepreneur to maximize their effectiveness in opportunity discovery,
evaluation, and exploitation, they need to effectively develop numerous entre-
preneurial capabilities. Even though business and engineering educational prac-
tices are focused on a variety of discipline-based content, both programs of
study encapsulate knowledge that is essential for entrepreneurial success.
More specifically, we suggest that business and engineering educational depart-
ments teach and develop varying entrepreneurial capabilities in their students
throughout their curriculum. For instance, scholars have found that entrepre-
neurial skills can be encouraged through specific educational practices in the
context of engineering students (e.g., De Hoyos-Ruperto et al., 2017; Pittaway,
2009; Winkler et al., 2015).
To promote a more thorough understanding of the outcomes of entrepre-
neurship education, scholars have called for further research on skills, know-
ledge, social networks, entrepreneurial values, and attitudes as specific
mechanisms and outcomes of university-based education (Rideout & Gray,
2013). Moreover, Kuratko (2005) suggested that ‘‘characteristics of seeking
opportunities, taking risks beyond security, and having the tenacity to push
an idea through to reality’’ (p. 578) are entrepreneurial perspectives that can
be encouraged through education. Implementing a systematic literature review,
Lee et al. 5

Pittaway and Cope (2007) examined factors influencing students’ entrepreneurial

perceptions such as proactive behavior and sufficient business knowledge.
Moreover, Morris et al. (2013) suggested core entrepreneurial competencies
such as optimism, passion, guerrilla behavior, and resource leveraging.
Johannisson (1991) introduced the framework of entrepreneurial competences
which includes both know-why (e.g., self-confidence and entrepreneurial enthu-
siasm) and know-who (e.g., networking capability).
As such, there are diverse entrepreneurial capabilities that may be fostered via
university education. For the purpose of this study, we aim to analyze three
potentially teachable entrepreneurial capabilities (networking skills, proactive-
ness, and self-confidence) that have been emphasized in the existing literature.
Based on the frameworks of entrepreneurial competences (Johannisson, 1991)
and core entrepreneurial competencies (Morris et al., 2013) as well as the
broader entrepreneurship education literature (e.g., Kuratko, 2005; Pittaway
& Cope, 2007; Rideout & Gray, 2013), we integrate several of the most com-
monly applied typologies and offer justifications assessing each capability. Each
of these capabilities plays a critical role in fostering entrepreneurial behaviors.
Specifically, these capabilities are established based upon theories of entrepre-
neurship (Johannisson, 1991) and a multistage methodology from a sample of
entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship professors (Morris et al., 2013). Networking
skills represent know-who competences, social skills (Johannisson, 1991),
resource leveraging competencies (Morris et al., 2013), and social networks
(Rideout & Gray, 2013). Self-confidence is built upon optimism (Morris et al.,
2013), know-why competences (Johannisson, 1991), and self-efficacy
(Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015). Last, proactiveness is related to guerrilla behav-
ior (Morris et al., 2013), know-who competences, enthusiasm (Johannisson,
1991), proactivity (Verzat, O’Shea, & Jore, 2017), proactive behavior
(Pittaway & Cope, 2007), opportunity seeking, and the tendency to drive an
idea (Kuratko, 2005). As an important point of clarification, we begin our
study with the presumption that university-based education is likely to exhibit
an influence on these entrepreneurial capabilities, which tend to be reasonably
malleable in nature.

Entrepreneurial Capabilities
Networking skills. For the purposes of this study, we define networking skills as
the ability to initiate and form a wide range of connections with other people.
We extend this definition by suggesting that high levels of networking skills are
positively associated with the amount of connections and the variety of connec-
tions that one makes (Kreiser, 2011). Prior research on entrepreneurship educa-
tion has argued that networking skills are a core entrepreneurial capability in
attaining necessary resources, knowledge, and information (e.g., Morris et al.,
2013). Specifically, networking skills are vital to an entrepreneur in terms of
6 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

accessibility and timing (e.g., Burt, 1997). Networks provide access to resources,
knowledge, and information well beyond a single person’s capacity.
To maximize the amount of resources, knowledge, and information to which
an entrepreneur has access, it is important for them to make connections with a
wide range of people (Gordon, Hamilton, & Jack, 2012). Humans tend to make
the majority of their connections with people who are most like themselves. Yet,
the extant literature posits that access to various channels of communication is
highly valuable because, when appropriately structured, networks increase the
likeliness of gaining information that is complementary and nonredundant
(Granovetter, 1973). Said differently, Granovetter (1973) argues that when mul-
tiple people who have a lot in common are in each other’s network, they provide
redundant information to each other, but when a network reaches a diverse
variety of people, then it will provide access to complimentary benefits. Ozgen
and Baron (2007) confirmed that the broader the entrepreneur’s social network,
and the greater the amount of conferences and professional meetings that they
attend, the more opportunities they will be able to identify. Networking also
provides early access to innovative ideas and necessary knowledge which are
advantages to an entrepreneur who seeks to act on opportunities before their
competitors (De Hoyos-Ruperto, Romaguera, Carlsson, & Lyytinen, 2013;
Pittaway, Robertson, Munir, Denyer, & Neely, 2004).
We posit that networking skills are a teachable entrepreneurial capability. For
instance, Johannisson (1991) suggested that university students can develop entre-
preneurial competences like networking capability through education provided by
universities. Moreover, many academic curriculums offer courses, seminars, and
training sessions to specifically advance the networking skills of their students.

Proactiveness. Proactiveness refers to an ability to identify opportunities, take

actions, and demonstrate initiative (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Moreover, proactive-
ness represents one’s tendency to initiate and enact new trends instead of reacting to
current trends. In the context of entrepreneurship, scholars have framed proactive-
ness as a core element of entrepreneurial capabilities (e.g., Johannisson, 1991).
Specifically, proactive entrepreneurs are strongly associated with idea generation,
problem searching, and strategic prospects (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Moreover,
proactiveness is pivotal in commercializing innovative products and services that
tap into customer demand. Schumpeter (1942) introduced the concept of creative
destruction, which is based upon this logic. Schumpeter’s conception focuses on
using new combinations of resources to create new innovations. When this is done
effectively, old methods are destroyed because of the advancement and disruptive
change that a new creative method provides.
An example of this is the history of the automotive industry. Before 1908,
people used horses and buggies to travel long distances. People used incremental
innovation to raise the fastest and healthiest horses and design buggies that had
minimal mass while maintaining high durability. In 1908, Henry Ford set out to
Lee et al. 7

radically change the industry by implementing creative destruction and designed

what was known as the Ford Model T car (Argyres, Bigelow, & Nickerson,
2015). Ford sold millions of cars and created an entirely new industry. Over
time, there have been steady incremental innovations to optimize this model,
and someday there will be a proactive entrepreneur who creates a new industry
and eliminates the automotive industry.
We posit that proactiveness is a teachable entrepreneurial capability.
For example, Verzat et al. (2017) recently found that university students’ proac-
tiveness could be increased through entrepreneurship-related courses. This sug-
gests that students can develop their proactiveness as a direct result of the
educational practices to which they are exposed.

Self-confidence. Self-confidence is a feeling of trust in one’s abilities, qualities, and

judgment. Moreover, self-confidence is based on an individual’s belief in their
skills and abilities for specific areas and expectations for success (Bandura, 1989;
Eccles, 1994). In the context of the entrepreneurship literature, scholars have
found that self-confidence is a strong predictor of intentions related to new
venture creation (e.g., Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). Moreover, researchers have
found that students involved in entrepreneurship education possess high levels of
self-confidence (Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998; Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007).
Moreover, optimism is a corollary of self-confidence and is frequently found
in entrepreneurs. The presence of optimism in an entrepreneur is the reason that
we, along with previous studies, exclude risk-taking as an entrepreneurial cap-
ability. Palich and Bagby (1995) found that entrepreneurs do not exhibit higher
levels of risk-taking compared with the general public. They simply tend to
frame business situations into cognitive categories that suggest more favorable
attributes (greater strengths vs. weaknesses, opportunities vs. threats, and poten-
tial for future performance improvement vs. deterioration). In other words,
entrepreneurs oftentimes do not view themselves as risk-takers because their
confidence and optimism push them to see the potential in opportunities instead
of the risks. The presence of high self-confidence is vital for an entrepreneur
because individuals who lack self-confidence in many situations will be reluctant
to view almost any idea as an obtainable opportunity (Stewart & Roth, 2001).
We posit that self-confidence is a teachable entrepreneurial capability.
Recently, researchers suggested that entrepreneurship education promotes con-
fidence in students in achieving entrepreneurial tasks and triggers them to
develop valuable capabilities that can be used in creating new companies
(Kassean, Vanevenhoven, Liguori, & Winkel, 2015).

Academic Departments and Entrepreneurial Capabilities

The differing types of knowledge and information obtained from one’s educa-
tion influence the development of diverse perspectives (Shane, 2000). Students
8 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

from different academic departments take a variety of courses based on their

respective department’s curriculum. Specifically, as university students take vari-
ous foundational, core, and major classes based upon their department’s gradu-
ation requirements, they cultivate differing levels of capabilities depending on
their curriculum. In this context, we argue that business and engineering stu-
dents are likely to display different levels of entrepreneurial capabilities as they
are exposed to unique educational perspectives and approaches.
We analyzed differences in the required curriculum of several business and
engineering departments to understand the unique influence of entrepreneur-
ship-related courses on the formation of entrepreneurial capabilities. On one
hand, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) cur-
riculum standards and educational goals align with the development of entre-
preneurial capabilities. Specifically, ABET recommends the inclusion of
interdisplinary activities, product and process development-related content,
and project management-related courses in engineering schools’ curriculum
(Duval-Couetil, Kisenwether, Tranquillo, & Wheadon, 2015). Moreover,
ABET lists the ability to lead heterogeneous teams, identify and solve problems,
and understand environmental constraints in advance as suggested educational
outcomes of an engineering program (ABET, 2018). An examination of numer-
ous accredited engineering programs suggests that many engineering curricu-
lums reflect these emphases. We also examined the specific list of courses in a
mechanical engineering department at a large Midwestern university in the
United States. We found two courses related to the formation of networking
skills and proactiveness: sophomore design and senior design. In both of the
aforementioned classes, students are given a project during the beginning of
the semester and are required to work in groups to deliver a viable solution.
At the end of the semester, the students display the results of their project at an
expo. The senior design class also requires constant interaction with an indus-
trial sponsor, and an emphasis is placed on teaching the students how to behave
professionally. In addition, engineering students are required to take several lab
classes, some of which carry heavy responsibilities and have a strong focus on
teamwork. This would imply that engineering students may develop higher levels
of proactiveness to deal with the heavy workload of these various courses. Due
to experiences like this, we contend that engineering students are likely to
develop several related entrepreneurial capabilities.
On the other hand, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) recommends a collective vision for business education with the intent to
inspire and cultivate students as entrepreneurial leaders in diverse communities
(AACSB, 2016). Moreover, AACSB guides institutions to integrate entrepreneur-
ship into their missions and curriculum (Fiet, 2001) and also emphasizes entre-
preneurship as one of the core accreditation foci of academic programs.
Therefore, almost all AACSB-accredited business schools provide entrepreneur-
ship-related courses (Katz, 2003). Moreover, an analysis of a flowchart for the
Lee et al. 9

business school at the same large Midwestern university revealed that there was a
significant emphasis on communication. Numerous communication-related
classes were listed as compulsory requirements including business communication,
fundamentals of public speaking, critical thinking and communication, and other
similar courses. The specific guidelines for the plan of study indicated that busi-
ness majors are recommended to take a mandatory communication class every
academic year until their junior year. By analyzing the flowcharts for the mech-
anical, aerospace, electrical, and construction engineering majors, it was found
that all students were required to take only one higher level communications class.
Aerospace and electrical engineering students were only given the option of tech-
nical communication, whereas mechanical and construction engineering students
could choose from business communication, proposal and report writing, and
technical communication for their one required course.
This difference in the emphasis on communication suggests that students
from different colleges will develop different skill sets that may give rise to
unique entrepreneurial capabilities. A possible example of this would be business
students developing higher levels of confidence than engineering students due to
their relatively greater exposure to visual presentations and projects emphasizing
oral communication skills. The example provides support for a broader point,
namely, that a student’s educational department is likely to influence the devel-
opment of their core entrepreneurial capabilities. As students are exposed to the
various types of knowledge, activities, and experiences provided via their aca-
demic program, they are exposed to opportunities to cultivate their specific
entrepreneurial capabilities. We posit that students of different majors will
build unique skills based on their respective curriculum exposing them to differ-
ent entrepreneurial skills. Therefore, we argue the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Business and engineering educational departments influence the

entrepreneurial capabilities of their respective students differently.

University-Based Education and Entrepreneurial Capabilities

Contemplating the influence of human capital investments (i.e., education) on
important outcomes (i.e., knowledge, skills, and abilities; Marvel, Davis, &
Sproul, 2016), we suggest that students’ entrepreneurial capabilities will be
enhanced through university-based education, regardless of their departments.
We put forth several rationales to explain the phenomenon of increased entrepre-
neurial capabilities resulting from university education. Our foundational argu-
ment is that students’ diverse entrepreneurship-related abilities will be enhanced as
they receive deepened exposure to the entrepreneurship-related courses and con-
tent during university education (Hahn, Minola, Van Gils, & Huybrechts, 2017).
Scholars have highlighted the importance of prior exposure to entrepreneurship
10 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

regarding future entrepreneurship-related activities (e.g., Baron & Ensley, 2006).

Similarly, entrepreneurship-related education leads students to acquire specific
knowledge and information providing an in-depth understanding of skills and
frameworks that can be used for diverse problem-solving (Wiersema & Bantel,
1992). Some students enter college with a strong self-assessment of themselves,
but, in many cases, students discover their strengths and passions while in college.
They change major departments or the types of classes in which they enroll mul-
tiple times in an attempt to find an educational path and career trajectory that is
complimentary to their natural abilities. Considering the continued growth of
formal entrepreneurship degree-granting programs, many students enter their
undergraduate education without a significant amount of previous exposure to
the field. Enrolling in entrepreneurship-based courses allows students to become
aware of skills and capabilities that may not have been fully uncovered in other
coursework. We argue that students tend to develop entrepreneurial capabilities
throughout their collegiate career.
As we have emphasized, an individual’s education helps to form their view-
points, skills, and knowledge (Tsui, Egan, & Xin, 1995). To be more specific,
educational programs in universities typically attempt to distill valuable skills in
their students by providing opportunities for students to increase their self-
confidence and networking skills. Examples of such activities might include pro-
viding potential leadership roles in clubs and classes, opportunities for public
speaking, and chances to interact with industry professionals through career
fairs (Pittaway, Gazzard, Shore, & Williamson, 2015). As such, we would expect
that students continue to harness their self-confidence and networking skills as they
are exposed to more educational opportunities emphasizing these skill sets.
Furthermore, as students advance in their academic careers, they start working
harder to ensure that they graduate with a respectable grade point average (GPA)
and that they are able to fully use the career skills they have learned in the class-
room. As they spend more time engaged in in-class and outside-of-class learning,
students start to act more proactively to achieve their career objectives (Verzat
et al., 2017). We would expect that students who take university-based coursework
exhibit similar trends, regardless of department. In this context, we propose that
students will show increased entrepreneurial capabilities as they are exposed to
more university-based education. Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: University-based education is positively associated with students’

entrepreneurial capabilities.

Entrepreneurial Intentions and Entrepreneurial Capabilities

We also posit that students with a strong intention to start a business will
develop higher levels of entrepreneurial capabilities. Our main argument is
Lee et al. 11

that these students will devote more energy, passion, and time to thoroughly
absorb, assimilate, and act upon their university education and participate in
diverse programs and activities that will eventually lead them to develop heigh-
tened entrepreneurial capabilities. Regardless of one’s major, a student is more
likely to strive toward taking actions and engaging in learning opportunities to
increase their entrepreneurial capabilities if they intend to start a business in the
future. Examples of such actions might include taking entrepreneurship-related
classes outside of their core requirements and involving themselves in entrepre-
neurial programs and experiences to learn more about the intricacies of starting
a business. Not only would these students be more likely to take entrepreneur-
ship-related classes from other departments, they would also exhibit a higher
tendency to actively manage their opportunities to learn from and absorb all of
the material gathered both inside and outside of the classroom.
Moreover, students with intentions to start a business are more likely to join
workshops and challenge themselves in competitions offered via entrepreneur-
ship centers at most large universities, such as initiative programs that help
young people to learn the basics of entrepreneurship, business planning and
pitch competitions, speaker series, conferences, and networking with local entre-
preneurs (Finkle et al., 2006). Last, students interested in starting their own
business are more likely to become actively involved with the clubs and society
activities that connect them professionally with like-minded professors and uni-
versity administrators (Pittaway et al., 2015). Therefore, those students are likely
to more actively search for the kinds of classes and opportunities that help them
to build their entrepreneurial skills. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: A student’s intent to start a business is positively associated with

their entrepreneurial capabilities.

Methods
Data Collection and Respondents
We collected data from 927 students at a large Midwestern university in the
United States. The survey was implemented across multiple colleges, but we
focused on the responses of business and engineering students. Student samples
are used frequently in entrepreneurship education research (e.g., Vanevenhoven
& Liguori, 2013). Table 1 represents the demographics of the study respondents.
About 55% of the survey respondents were from a business department, 18%
were from an engineering department, and 28% were from other departments.
Moreover, 15% of the respondents were freshmen, 43% were sophomores, 21%
were juniors, and 22% were seniors. In terms of gender, survey respondents were
60% male and 40% were female. In terms of GPA, 26% were between 3.60 and
12 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

Table 1. Demographics of Respondents.

Number of
Variables respondents Description Percentage

Major department 507 Business majors 54.7

162 Engineering majors 17.5
258 Other majors 27.8
Academic year 138 Freshman 14.9
399 Sophomore 43.0
191 Junior 20.6
199 Senior 21.5
Gender 562 Male 60.6
365 Female 39.4
GPA 239 Between 3.60 and 4.0 25.7
263 Between 3.20 and 3.59 28.4
250 Between 2.80 and 3.19 27.0
129 Between 2.50 and 2.79 13.9
46 Below 2.50 5.0
Family background 487 Have an entrepreneur in family 52.5
440 Do not have an entrepreneur in family 47.5
Note. N ¼ 927. GPA ¼ grade point average.

4.0, 28% were between 3.20 to 3.59, 27% were between 2.80 to 3.19, 14% were
between 2.50 to 2.79, and 5% were below 2.50. Last, 52% of the respondents
had an immediate family member who started a business.
The survey instrument was developed by the authors and was pretested by
two other entrepreneurship-focused professors. Appropriate alterations were
conducted based on the reviews from the pretest. Based on the definitions of
each entrepreneurial capability as elaborated upon in the literature review, we
developed survey items to assess each specific capability. We specifically
designed the questionnaires aimed toward a university audience to measure
three aspects of entrepreneurial capabilities. For instance, the items related to
networking skills assess students’ engagement in extracurricular activities and
the degree of communication frequency with professors. The items related to
self-confidence are designed to focus upon students’ participation in class, per-
ceptions of their own leadership abilities, and levels of confidence when giving
presentations. Last, the items related to proactiveness assess the frequency of
preparation for extra materials and exams in advance. We recognized that we
could study additional entrepreneurial capabilities, but we believed that focusing
our study on these three capabilities would provide accurate results while still
making the survey as succinct as possible. Therefore, we measured
Lee et al. 13

entrepreneurial capabilities related to networking skills, proactiveness, and self-

confidence. Moreover, we measured entrepreneurial intentions and obtained
information on respondents’ major, gender, academic year, GPA, and family
background for supplemental analyses. The survey assessed situations that col-
lege students encounter throughout their educational career using a 5-point
Likert scale. Two questions were reverse coded to remove any potential
biases, and the full version of the questionnaire is provided in the Appendix.

Results
Table 2 represents the correlations for the primary study variables. The correl-
ations among the primary variables tended to be small to medium in magnitude
(Cohen, 1992). Entrepreneurial capabilities had a significant correlation with
entrepreneurial intentions, family background, and GPA.
To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, t-tests were conducted. Table 3 shows the results
of the t-test studying the relationship between majors and entrepreneurial cap-
abilities. For the purpose of Hypothesis 1, we intentionally sought out the
responses of business and engineering students. Hence, the responses of the
students from other departments (other than business and engineering) were
dropped in this particular analysis. As described in Table 3, the mean score of
entrepreneurial capabilities from students in a business department was signifi-
cantly lower than that of the students in an engineering department,
t(667) ¼ 2.55, p ¼ .01, d ¼ 0.21. Table 4 describes the mean differences of

Table 2. Summary Statistics and Correlations Matrix.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Business majora 0.55 0.50

2. Engineering majora 0.18 0.38 N/A
3. Other majorsa 0.28 0.45 N/A N/A
4. Genderb 0.39 0.49 .12** .22** .32**
5. Yearc 2.49 0.99 .32** .38** .03 .10**
6. Entrepreneurial intentions 2.97 1.12 .01 .02 .03 .18** .06
7. Family backgroundd 0.47 0.50 .04 .05 .01 .05 .03 .21**
8. GPA 3.42 0.45 .05 .01 .05 .16** .10** .01 .03
9. Entrepreneurial capabilities 2.83 0.59 .04 .09** .03 .04 .08* .17** .09** .23**

Note. GPA ¼ grade point average.

a
Business major, Engineering major, Other majors coded as Yes ¼ 1, No ¼ 0.
b
Gender coded as Male ¼ 0, Female ¼ 1.
c
Year coded as Freshman ¼ 1, Sophomore ¼ 2, Junior ¼ 3, Senior ¼ 4.
d
Family background coded as Yes ¼ 1, No ¼ 0.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
14 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

Table 3. Results of t-Test for Hypothesis 1.

Businessa Engineering 95% CI

M SD M SD t-test Lower Upper Cohen’s d

Entrepreneurial capabilities 0.03 0.58 0.10 0.64 2.55* 0.24 0.03 0.21
Note. N ¼ 669.
a
Major coded Business ¼ 0, Engineering ¼ 1.
*p < .05.

Table 4. Results of t-Test for Hypothesis 2.

Lower classa Upper class 95% CI

M SD M SD t-test Lower Upper Cohen’s d

Entrepreneurial capabilities 0.04 0.56 0.05 0.62 2.22* 0.16 0.01 0.15
Note. N ¼ 927.
a
Year coded Lower class ¼ 1, Upper class ¼ 2.
*p < .05.

entrepreneurial capabilities between lower-class students and upper-class stu-

dents using t-test analyses. For entrepreneurial capabilities, the mean score for
students in their junior and senior year was higher than the mean score for
students in their freshman and sophomore year, t(925) ¼ 2.22, p ¼ .03,
d ¼ 0.15. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 are supported.
We used regression analysis to test Hypothesis 3. Table 5 reports the results of
the regression analysis analyzing the relationship between entrepreneurial inten-
tions and entrepreneurial capabilities while controlling for students’ major,
gender, GPA, and family entrepreneurship background. In Model 1, we exam-
ined only the control variables and found that engineering majors (B ¼ 0.13,
p ¼ .04); GPA (B ¼ 0.30, p < .001); and family entrepreneurship background
(B ¼ 0.10, p ¼ .01) are significant predictors of entrepreneurial capabilities. In
Model 2, the results indicated that having stronger entrepreneurial intentions is a
significant predictor of students’ entrepreneurial capabilities (B ¼ 0.08, p < .001).
Also, the change in R2 displayed a significant enhancement in model fit between
Model 1 and Model 2 (p < .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Post Hoc Analyses

We also investigated the relationship between several other demographic char-
acteristics, entrepreneurial capabilities, and intentions. Table 6 identifies several
interesting results related to various post hoc analyses. First, participants with a
Lee et al. 15

Table 5. Model Results for Hypothesis 3.

Dependent variable ¼ Entrepreneurial capabilities

Model 1 Model 2

Control variables
Business major 0.00 (0.05) 0.01 (0.05)
Engineering major 0.13* (0.06) 0.13* (0.06)
Gender 0.07 (0.04) 0.03 (0.04)
GPA 0.30** (0.04) 0.30** (0.04)
Family background 0.10* (0.04) 0.06 (0.04)
Independent variable
Entrepreneurial intentions 0.08** (0.02)
Constant 1.08** (0.15) 1.05** (0.15)
R2 .07** .09**
Adjusted R2 .07 .09
R2 .02**
Note. N ¼ 927. GPA ¼ grade point average.
Unstandardized coefficients reported. Standard errors in parentheses.
*p < .05. **p < .001.

family entrepreneurship background scored significantly higher on entrepreneur-

ial intentions, when compared with those without a family entrepreneurship
background, t(925) ¼ 6.41, p < .001, d ¼ 0.42. Second, we examined the relation-
ship between gender and entrepreneurial capabilities. The results suggest no
gender differences in entrepreneurial capabilities, t(925) ¼ 0.23, p ¼ .23,
d ¼ 0.08. Last, we conducted homogeneity analysis of variance tests to examine
the relationship between year in school and variance in entrepreneurial capabil-
ities. We divided years into four categories (i.e., freshman, sophomore, junior,
and senior). The test of homogeneity of variances indicated that the variances of
entrepreneurial capabilities were not statistically different among the four cate-
gories (p ¼ .18). More specifically, the results suggest that isomorphic trends in
entrepreneurial capabilities did not increase according to students’ year in
school. The standard deviations for entrepreneurial capabilities increased grad-
ually from freshmen (SD ¼ 0.52) to senior year (SD ¼ 0.61), which suggests
that students have larger variances in entrepreneurial capabilities as
they advance in school. Moreover, we assessed other possible categorizations
of students (i.e., lower class vs. upper class and freshman vs. senior). However,
the results were not significant. Therefore, we concluded that there is a little
evidence that the variances are equal, and the homogeneity of variance assump-
tions is not met.
16 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

Table 6. Results of t-Test for Post Hoc Analysis.

Family entrepreneurship background and entrepreneurial intentions

Yesa No 95% CI

M SD M SD t-test Lower Upper Cohen’s d

Entrepreneurial intentions 0.22 1.10 0.24 1.09 6.41*** 0.32 0.61 0.42

Gender and entrepreneurial capabilities

Maleb Female 95% CI

M SD M SD t-test Lower Upper Cohen’s d

Entrepreneurial capabilities 0.02 0.61 0.03 0.55 1.2 0.03 0.13 0.08
Note. N ¼ 927.
a
Family background coded as Yes ¼ 1, No ¼ 0.
b
Gender coded as Male ¼ 0, Female ¼ 1.
***p < .001.

Discussion
In this article, we sought to understand the relationship between university-based
education and entrepreneurial capabilities. Specifically, we examined ‘‘for what
purpose’’ entrepreneurship-related education may wield a positive impact on stu-
dent development (Liguori et al., 2018, p. 6). Our primary findings help to address
the role that business and engineering education curriculums wield in influencing
the development of entrepreneurial capabilities. More specifically, our results sug-
gest that engineering and business students display different tendencies in the
attainment of several entrepreneurial capabilities. We proffered networking
skills, proactiveness, and self-confidence as teachable entrepreneurial capabilities.
The results generally suggest that business and engineering students displayed
differing levels of overall entrepreneurial capabilities. Therefore, students can
take these findings and enroll in additional classes, seminars, and training courses
to enhance the potential relationships that we have identified. More specifically,
we recommend that students should actively seek out courses from other depart-
ments and become involved in networking events, initiative programs, pitch com-
petitions, conferences, and activities that are provided by entrepreneurship
centers. Recently, scholars have emphasized ‘‘the importance of co-curricular
activities in developing student’ social capital’’ (Shirokova, Osiyevskyy, Morris,
& Bogatyreva, 2017, p. 935). Therefore, we suggest university students should
involve themselves in activities not only from their departments but also from
diverse areas to enhance their overall entrepreneurial capabilities.
Lee et al. 17

Contemplating these findings, we offer several recommendations related to the

structuring of entrepreneurship curriculum. First, different colleges and universi-
ties should share the know-how of their entrepreneurship-related curriculum and
educational experiences (AACSB, 2016). This would increase accessibility to best
practices related to entrepreneurship-related courses and curriculum.
Disseminating and integrating best practices would help universities to benchmark
options for students to nurture appropriate entrepreneurial capabilities. Lessening
boundaries between colleges within universities and also between different uni-
versities through sharing critical knowledge on pedagogical methods would help
to stimulate an overall entrepreneurial culture within many universities. Second,
schools should provide incentives for the development of multidisciplinary cur-
riculum, courses, and research projects to generate valuable interactions between
professors, labs, and students. Providing innovative settings for interdisciplinary
collaborations between these entities would encourage students to become
involved in a more diverse learning atmosphere. This could serve as a primary
driver of forming an entrepreneurial ecosystem within and across universities.
Third, universities should expand the number and variety of entrepreneurship-
related courses offered by business, engineering, and other schools throughout the
campus and then actively advertise these courses to all students (European
Commission, 2012). Johannisson (2016) found that students could acquire entre-
preneurial knowledge and skills through including entrepreneurship-related sub-
jects in their academic programs of study. Therefore, we recommend that
educational administrators and policy makers encourage students to engage in
more balanced coursework to embrace their overall entrepreneurial capabilities.
Last, engineering and business schools should add courses and materials to their
curriculum that will improve the respective weaknesses that may typically be
found in their students. For example, educational departments can teach their
students about emotional intelligence so that these students can become specific-
ally aware of their own entrepreneurial capabilities (Goleman, 1998).
We found that students’ overall entrepreneurial capabilities tend to be further
cultivated as they spend more time in school. Specifically, there was a significant
difference in the entrepreneurial capabilities between upper-class students and
lower-class students. Once again, this could be interpreted as junior and senior
students possessing more entrepreneurial capabilities than freshman and sopho-
more students because of exposure to entrepreneurship-related educational
opportunities, regardless of their department. As a result of our study, entrepre-
neurship educators can start to think about and develop specific pedagogical
methods that are tailored toward the capabilities of their students. For instance,
scholars have suggested that professors should develop and cultivate a safe
atmosphere conducive to learning by encouraging and integrating the heteroge-
neous opinions of students and emphasizing the importance of process rather
than results by encouraging plans and ideas related to entrepreneurship (Farny,
Frederiksen, Hannibal, & Jones, 2016). Moreover, scholars have recommended
18 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

providing case studies and integrating experimental learning tools like podcasts
and videos in the classroom to encourage students to become engaged in learn-
ing corporate entrepreneurship (Kuratko & Morris, 2018a).
Last, we theorized and found empirical support that students with stronger
entrepreneurial intentions tend to develop higher entrepreneurial capabilities. The
overarching explanation underlying this finding is that students who are actively
pursuing the entrepreneurial dream are likely to become more heavily involved in
diverse entrepreneurship-related activities provided by their universities, colleges,
departments, entrepreneurship centers, and instructors. To promote and help
develop their students’ overall entrepreneurial capabilities, faculty and adminis-
trators should understand the value of offering diverse extracurricular opportu-
nities to their students and also recognize the need to provide necessary
educational programs that may help to hone their students’ capabilities.
The post hoc analyses also provided several interesting avenues for future
research. First, entrepreneurial intentions were significantly affected if students
had a family member who had started a business. As scholars have suggested,
this supports the positive influence of family experience on students’ future
entrepreneurship intentions (Hatten & Ruhland, 1995; Wang & Wong, 2004).
Second, we found that gender has no differential effect on entrepreneurial cap-
abilities. In terms of entrepreneurial capabilities, males and females exhibited no
significant differences. Last, we also analyzed whether entrepreneurial capabil-
ities exhibited isomorphic trends as students progressed in seniority. DiMaggio
and Powell (1983) showed that units within a population tend to more closely
resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions over
time, known as isomorphism. Therefore, we examined whether students would
show isomorphic trends in their entrepreneurial capabilities with their fellow
classmates as students spend more time in one department. While we found
that students’ overall entrepreneurial capabilities tend to be further cultivated
as they spend more time in school, we did not find any evidence suggesting
isomorphic trends among these students.
Based on the findings of our study, we suggest that policy makers should
support entrepreneurship-related courses through recommending them as a
required curriculum for diverse disciplines (European Commission, 2012).
Moreover, considering the impact of university education on regional know-
ledge spillover, universities and policy makers should acknowledge the power
of university-based entrepreneurship education for establishing innovative regio-
nal clusters (Huggins, 2008). Scholars have emphasized regional contexts in
understanding entrepreneurship education (Leitch, Hazlett, & Pittaway, 2012).
For instance, synergies from the geographic proximity between universities and
local businesses matter for regional innovation systems and the prosperity of the
Lee et al. 19

local economy (Dodd & Hynes, 2012). Therefore, university administration

should consider involving local case studies in their university-based courses,
increasing activities with local entrepreneurs, and inviting local business owners
as teachers and mentors (Lindh & Thorgren, 2016), which could benefit all the
stakeholders of the regional communities including university staff members,
faculty, students, local businesses, local residents, and more.
While conducting this study, we encountered several potential limitations.
First, because this survey was administered in a specific university, it is possible
that these results are not fully generalizable to all students and universities. For
instance, investigating an innovative and entrepreneurial university in the United
Kingdom, Palfreyman (1989) emphasized considering the specific context of each
university to understand the impact of education on entrepreneurship. Second, the
measurement tool developed for this study assesses three specific capabilities, but
there are likely additional characteristics that are influenced by entrepreneurial
education. Further, we did not specifically assess the individual entrepreneurship
courses taken by each student. But we controlled for whether the student had a
family background related to entrepreneurship. Third, a self-selection bias might
exist wherein students with specific capabilities may be more likely to choose
particular majors. Future research should assess the possibility of self-selection
bias related to entrepreneurship education. Last, we assume that year in school is
the most representative characteristic of specific isomorphic trends. Future
research could use longitudinal measurements to see whether specific students
show isomorphic trends as they stay in one department over time.

Conclusion
In conclusion, we examined whether university-based education wields an influ-
ence on the development of entrepreneurial capabilities. Our study was primarily
designed to measure educational trends related to entrepreneurial capabilities dis-
played by business and engineering students. Specifically, we focused our study on
an analysis of networking skills, proactiveness, and self-confidence as teachable
entrepreneurial capabilities. We offered several possible explanations for the dif-
ferential results that business and engineering students demonstrate in their entre-
preneurial capabilities. Moreover, we discussed possible strategies that business
and engineering students, along with their respective educational departments, can
implement to address possible shortcomings in the development of entrepreneurial
capabilities. Last, we suggested future avenues that could inspire fruitful entre-
preneurship education research. We hope that our results provide further con-
firmation of the inherent value of university-based education in helping students
to achieve their entrepreneurial potential.
20 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

Appendix. Survey Questionnaires

Demographic Variables
Which best classifies as your major department here at this university?
Business
Engineering
Other (Please specify):
What is your gender?
Male
Female
Other
What is your academic standing here at this university?
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
How strong are your intentions of someday starting a business?
1. Weak
2. Fairly Weak
3. Moderate
4. Fairly Strong
5. Strong

Has anybody in your immediate family started a business?

Yes
No
What range does your current GPA fall under?
Below 2.50
2.50–2.79
2.80–3.19
3.20–3.59
3.60–4.0

Networking Skills
How often do you engage in extracurricular activities? (These can be social
activities, professional activities, athletics, etc.)
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always
How often do you make contact with your professors and TAs through con-
versations, e-mails, or LinkedIn?
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always
Lee et al. 21

Self-Confidence
How often do you raise your hand in orderto answer questions in class?
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always
Do you think that you would make a good leader for a club/group? (Reverse
coded)
You would make a great leader 1 2 3 4 5 You would make a poor leader

Do you feel confident giving presentations in front of large classes (100+ stu-
dents)? (Reverse coded)
You feel confident giving presentations 1 2 3 4 5 You don’t feel comfortable
giving presentations

Proactiveness
How often do you read extra material in a class purely out of interest (i.e.,
reading that isn’t required as part of the class)?
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always
How often do you start studying/preparing for an exam earlier than the average
student?
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

References
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. (2018). Engineering accreditation
commission. Baltimore, MD: ABET.
Argyres, N., Bigelow, L., & Nickerson, J. A. (2015). Dominant designs, innovation
shocks, and the follower’s dilemma. Strategic Management Journal, 36(2), 216–234.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2016). A collective vision for
business education. Tampa, FL: AACSB International.
Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepre-
neurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy.
Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729.
22 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of mean-
ingful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs.
Management Science, 52(9), 1331–1344.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior:
A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.
Birch, D. G. (1987). Job creation in America: How our smallest companies put the most
people to work. New York, NY: Free Press.
Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distin-
guish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
De Hoyos-Ruperto, M., Pomales-Garcı́a, C., Padovani, A., & Suárez, O. M. (2017). An
entrepreneurship education co-curricular program to stimulate entrepreneurial mind-
set in engineering students. MRS Advances, 2(31–32), 1673–1679.
De Hoyos-Ruperto, M., Romaguera, J. M., Carlsson, B., & Lyytinen, K. (2013).
Networking: A critical success factor for entrepreneurship. American Journal of
Management, 13(2), 55–72.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and
institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,
48(2), 147–160.
Dodd, S. D., & Hynes, B. C. (2012). The impact of regional entrepreneurial contexts
upon enterprise education. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(9–10),
741–766.
Drucker, P. (1985). Entrepreneurship and innovation: Practice and principles. New York,
NY: Harper Business.
Duval-Couetil, N., Kisenwether, E., Tranquillo, J., & Wheadon, J. (2015). Exploring the
intersection of entrepreneurship education and ABET accreditation criteria. Journal of
Engineering Entrepreneurship, 6(2), 44–57.
Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609.
European Commission. (2012). Effects and impact of entrepreneurship programmes in
higher education. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry.
Farny, S., Frederiksen, S. H., Hannibal, M., & Jones, S. (2016). A culture of entrepreneurship
education. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(7–8), 514–535.
Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25(7–8), 692–701.
Fiet, J. O. (2001). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business
Venturing, 16(2), 101–117.
Finkle, T. A., Kuratko, D. F., & Goldsby, M. G. (2006). An examination of entrepre-
neurship centers in the United States: A national survey. Journal of Small Business
Management, 44(2), 184–206.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.
Gordon, I., Hamilton, E., & Jack, S. (2012). A study of a university-led entrepreneurship
education programme for small business owner/managers. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 24(9–10), 767–805.
Lee et al. 23

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepre-
neurship education, enterprise education and education for small business
management: A ten-year literature review. International Small Business Journal,
15(3), 56–77.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,
78(6), 1360–1380.
Hahn, D., Minola, T., Van Gils, A., & Huybrechts, J. (2017). Entrepreneurial education
and learning at universities: Exploring multilevel contingencies. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 29(9–10), 945–974.
Hatten, T. S., & Ruhland, S. K. (1995). Student attitude toward entrepreneurship as
affected by participation in an SBI program. Journal of Education for Business,
70(4), 224–227.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the micro-
foundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831–850.
Huggins, R. (2008). Universities and knowledge-based venturing: Finance, management
and networks in London. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20(2), 185–206.
Johannisson, B. (1991). University training for entrepreneurship: Swedish approaches.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 3(1), 67–82.
Johannisson, B. (2016). Limits to and prospects of entrepreneurship education in the
academic context. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(5–6), 403–423.
Jones, P., Penaluna, A., & Pittaway, L. (2014). Entrepreneurship education: A recipe for
change? International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 304–306.
Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Liguori, E., & Winkel, D. E. (2015). Entrepreneurship
education: A need for reflection, real-world experience and action. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 21(5), 690–708.
Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneur-
ship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283–300.
Katz, J. A., Roberts, J., Strom, R., & Freilich, A. (2014). Perspectives on the development
of cross campus entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 4(1),
13–44.
Kreiser, P. M. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation and organizational learning: The
impact of network range and network closure. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 35(5), 1025–1050.
Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entre-
preneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91–104.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education:
Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5),
577–598.
Kuratko, D. F. (2006). A tribute to 50 years of excellence in entrepreneurship and small
business. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3), 483–492.
Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2018a). Corporate entrepreneurship: A critical chal-
lenge for educators and researchers. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1),
42–60.
Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2018b). Examining the future trajectory of entrepre-
neurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 11–23.
24 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

Leitch, C., Hazlett, S.-A., & Pittaway, L. (2012). Entrepreneurship education and context.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(9–10), 733–740.
Liguori, E., Winkler, C., Winkel, D., Marvel, M. R., Keels, J. K., van Gelderen, M., &
Noyes, E. (2018). The entrepreneurship education imperative: Introducing EE&P.
Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 5–7.
Lindh, I., & Thorgren, S. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: The role of local business.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(5–6), 313–336.
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human
capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes.
Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224.
Marvel, M. R., Davis, J. L., & Sproul, C. R. (2016). Human capital and entrepreneurship
research: A critical review and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
40(3), 599–626.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., & Cornwall, J. R. (2013). Entrepreneurship programs and
the modern university. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
Morris, M. H., & Liguori, E. (2016). Preface: Teaching reason and the unreasonable.
In M. H. Morris & E. Liguori (Eds.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and peda-
gogy (Vol. 2, pp. xiv–xxii). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Morris, N. M., Kuratko, D. F., & Pryor, C. G. (2014). Building blocks for the develop-
ment of university-wide entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 4(1),
45–68.
Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entre-
preneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and
new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.
Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship
education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review,
54(3), 442–454.
Ozgen, E., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Social sources of information in opportunity recogni-
tion: Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums. Journal of
Business Venturing, 22(2), 174–192.
Palfreyman, D. (1989). The Warwick way: A case study of entrepreneurship within a
university context. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 1(2), 207–219.
Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-
taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(6), 425–438.
Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. (2015). Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship
education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of
Small Business Management, 53(4), 970–985.
Pittaway, L. (2009). The role of inquiry-based learning in entrepreneurship education.
Industry and Higher Education, 23(3), 153–162.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the
evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and
innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 5(3–4), 137–168.
Lee et al. 25

Pittaway, L. A., Gazzard, J., Shore, A., & Williamson, T. (2015). Student clubs:
Experiences in entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
27(3–4), 127–153.
Rauch, A., & Hulsink, W. (2015). Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention
to act lies: An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entre-
preneurial behavior. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 14(2), 187–204.
Rideout, E. C., & Gray, D. O. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work?
A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of
university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management,
51(3), 329–351.
Sánchez, J. C. (2013). The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entre-
preneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3),
447–465.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York, NY: Harper
and Brothers.
Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities.
Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Shinnar, R., Pruett, M., & Toney, B. (2009). Entrepreneurship education: Attitudes
across campus. Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 151–159.
Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., Morris, M. H., & Bogatyreva, K. (2017). Expertise,
university infrastructure and approaches to new venture creation: Assessing
students who start businesses. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 29(9–10),
912–944.
Smith, E. E., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2008). Cognitive psychology: Mind and brain. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S., & Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship edu-
cation in the United States: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 65–86.
Souitaris, 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.
Stewart, W. H. Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs
and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 145–153.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & Xin, K. R. (1995). Diversity in organizations: Lessons from
demography research. In M. Chemers, S. Oskamp & M. A. Costango (Eds.), Diversity
in organizations (pp. 191–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vanevenhoven, J. (2013). Advances and challenges in entrepreneurship education.
Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 466–470.
Vanevenhoven, J., & Liguori, E. (2013). The impact of entrepreneurship education:
Introducing the entrepreneurship education project. Journal of Small Business
Management, 51(3), 315–328.
Verzat, C., O’Shea, N., & Jore, M. (2017). Teaching proactivity in the entrepreneurial
classroom. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 29(9–10), 975–1013.
26 Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 0(0)

Von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D., & Weber, R. (2010). The effects of entrepreneurship
education. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 76(1), 90–112.
Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016). Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: An insti-
tutional perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 216–233.
Walter, S. G., Parboteeah, K. P., & Walter, A. (2013). University departments and self-
employment intentions of business students: A cross-level analysis. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 37(2), 175–200.
Wang, C. K., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Entrepreneurial interest of university students in
Singapore. Technovation, 24(2), 163–172.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and cor-
porate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 91–121.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and
entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387–406.
Winkel, D. (2013). The changing face of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small
Business Management, 51(3), 313–314.
Winkler, C. (2014). Toward a dynamic understanding of entrepreneurship education
research across the campus: Social cognition and action research. Entrepreneurship
Research Journal, 4(1), 69–93.
Winkler, C., Troudt, E. E., Schweikert, C., & Schulman, S. A. (2015). Infusing business
and entrepreneurship education into a computer science curriculum: A case study of
the STEM Virtual Enterprise. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 27(1), 1–21.

Author Biographies
Younggeun Lee is a PhD student in entrepreneurship in the Ivy College of
Business at Iowa State University.

Patrick M. Kreiser is the Bob and Kay Smith Fellow in Entrepreneurship and
associate professor of Management in the Ivy College of Business at Iowa State
University.

Alex H. Wrede is a PhD student in mechanical engineering in the College of

Engineering at Iowa State University.

Sanvisna Kogelen is a MS student in mechanical engineering in the College of

Engineering at Iowa State University.