The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm

Evolution of
A systematic literature review pedagogy
of the evolution of pedagogy
in entrepreneurial
education research
Gustav Hägg Received 30 April 2018
Revised 11 February 2019
Sten K. Johnson Centre for Entrepreneurship, Accepted 31 March 2019
School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, and
Jonas Gabrielsson
Department of Business, Economics and Law,
Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to create a better understanding of how entrepreneurial education
research has evolved with regard to pedagogy over the past decades.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors employed systematic review methodology to enable an
in-depth analysis of the literature in a process that was both replicable and transparent. Guided by the research
purpose, the systematic review of 395 articles published between January 1980 and December 2018 was
influenced by a configurative approach aimed at interpreting and understanding the phenomenon under study.
Findings – The analysis suggests that the scholarly discourse on pedagogy in entrepreneurial education
research has developed over time from teacher-guided instructional models to more constructivist
perspectives. A shift in the literature was also observed, where scholarly discussions moved from addressing
the issue of teachability to a greater emphasis on learnability. Contemporary discussions centre on the
theoretical and philosophical foundations of experience-based teaching and learning.
Originality/value – The study illustrates how entrepreneurial education has evolved into a distinct research
theme, characterized by a practice-oriented research agenda that emphasizes the need to connect teaching to
“real-world” environments. The practice-oriented agenda has led to continued societal interest in promoting
entrepreneurial education, while at the same time creating low academic legitimacy.
Keywords Evolution, Pedagogy, Entrepreneurship, Systematic literature review,
Entrepreneurial education
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
Entrepreneurial education, in here understood as courses and programmes in
entrepreneurship, is today offered to students at most major universities across the world
(Morris and Liguori, 2016). This widespread interest has been fuelled by economic
downturns as well as by research supporting the notion that entrepreneurship is a key
driving force behind social and economic transformation (Fayolle et al., 2016; Kirchhoff and
Greene, 1998). Another contributory factor is that entrepreneurial education represents one
of the most progressive and innovative forms of teaching in higher education (Greene et al.,
2004; Neck and Corbett, 2018) where students are confronted with action-oriented
pedagogies (Honig, 2004; Kassean et al., 2015; Mandel and Noyes, 2016), including
experiential learning activities such as writing business plans, simulations, developing
products, services and business models, as well as starting up real live ventures
(Duval-Couetil, 2013; Fox et al., 2018; Rasmussen and Sørheim, 2006; Solomon et al., 1994). International Journal of
However, research on entrepreneurship courses and programmes is a young and Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research
fragmented field where scholars debate what focus this form of education should have © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-2554
(Fayolle, 2013; Jones, 2010; Jones et al., 2014; Lackéus et al., 2016; Neck and Corbett, 2018; DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0272
IJEBR Neck and Greene, 2011). Some research findings address concepts and curricular
approaches that focus on “start-up” entrepreneurship and the process of new venture
creation (Kassean et al., 2015; Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2015), others cover various
aspects related to operating and running a small growing business (Gibb, 1997;
Mwasalwiba, 2010; Sirelkhatim and Gangi, 2015), while some focus more on developing
entrepreneurial life skills and abilities (Gibb, 2002b; Jones and Iredale, 2010; Jones et al., 2014,
2018). It should be noted that entrepreneurial education may have slightly different
meanings depending on where the studies have been conducted (e.g. Jones and Iredale, 2010;
Neck and Corbett, 2018). A dividing line can be drawn between European and North
American scholars. The development in Europe is diverse, with early influences from
research in Britain centring on “enterprising education” with courses covering various
aspects related to small business (cf. Gibb, 1987) and the development of enterprising
behaviour ( Jones and Iredale, 2010; Jones et al., 2014). In North America, the development
has primarily centred on “entrepreneurship education” with a focus on the start-up
entrepreneur and aspects associated with venture creation (cf. Katz, 2003).
In this paper, we use the term entrepreneurial education (Erkkilä, 2000) to refer to both
entrepreneurship from a start-up perspective focussed on the specific context of venture
creation and an enterprising perspective focussing more broadly on personal development,
mindset, skills and abilities. We acknowledge that the different perspectives, and even the
differing approaches within these perspectives, are embedded in various underlying
conceptions of how entrepreneurship is defined (i.e. Solomon et al., 1994) and how to best
implement pedagogies to support a learning environment that fosters entrepreneurship (e.g.
Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994a; Young and Sexton, 1997). Importantly, these issues relate to
pedagogy by implicitly influencing curricula design, teacher practices, learner roles and
expected learning outcomes (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008; Fayolle et al., 2016; Hägg and
Kurczewska, 2018). Nevertheless, the scholarly understanding of pedagogy in
entrepreneurial education is in many ways poorly developed (Fayolle, 2013).
We acknowledge that previous reviews (e.g. Béchard and Grégoire, 2005; Mwasalwiba,
2010; Nabi et al., 2017; Pittaway and Cope, 2007a) have provided valuable insights into
different themes and approaches within entrepreneurial education. However, we also see
considerable room for advancing the field. For example, Pittaway and Cope (2007a)
highlight the general lack of consensus on what entrepreneurship actually means when
practically implemented in educational settings. In a similar vein, Mwasalwiba (2010)
suggests that despite a general alignment, scholars still differ on a number of definitive
issues pertaining to applied pedagogical approaches. This is further addressed by Fayolle
(2013), who emphasizes that research on entrepreneurial education is highly fragmented and
non-cumulative, thus there is a need to better understand the underlying conceptions that
guide and determine the roles of educators and students (see also Rideout and Gray, 2013).
Additionally, Nabi et al. (2017) call for focussed research on pedagogy and learning methods.
Our paper seeks to contribute to this stream of research by creating a better
understanding of how research on entrepreneurial education has evolved in terms of
pedagogical developments. More specifically, we set out to analyse how the research
discussion about pedagogy in entrepreneurial education in scholarly journals has emerged
and developed over time. In line with Murphy (2008), we define pedagogy as being about the
“interactions between teachers, students and the learning environment and learning tasks”.
Guided by this definition and building on Johannisson (1991), Hindle (2007) and Fayolle and
Gailly (2008), we analyse scholarly work on entrepreneurial education with respect to who is
involved as instructors, what content is included, for whom entrepreneurial education is
intended and how education is conducted in terms of teaching methods. In addition, as we
seek to understand the process of evolution, we embed our “who-is-doing-what-for-whom-
and-how” framework in an evolutionary approach (e.g. Aldrich, 1999) to better grasp how
the scholarly discourse on pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research operates in Evolution of
different time periods. We believe that this integrated approach serves as a viable analytical pedagogy
tool to analyse and illustrate how the pedagogical building blocks discussed in scholarly
research on entrepreneurial education have emerged and developed over time.

Previous literature reviews on entrepreneurial education

Systematic reviews on literature and research on courses and programmes in
entrepreneurship began to appear in the 1990s. These early reviews report empirical
evidence in support of the assumption that skills relevant to successful entrepreneurship can
be taught (Gorman et al., 1997; Solomon et al., 1994), but also emphasize the need not to lose
sight of the uniqueness of entrepreneurship education (Solomon et al., 1994). Several reviews
indicate that research on curriculum development and programme content in entrepreneurial
education has gone largely unnoticed, with little consistency among existing programmes
with respect to curriculum or teaching methods (Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994a, b; Gorman
et al., 1997). In this regard, Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994a) describe the field as being
fragmented, explorative and largely descriptive, with most research questions relating to
particular programmes and focussing on measures of their short-term impact or effectiveness.
A common feature emphasized in reviews during the 1990s is the challenges involved in
the development of the curriculum and programme content in entrepreneurial education, as
well as the identification of sets of knowledge, skills and values that support
entrepreneurship (Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994a, b; Gorman et al., 1997; Solomon et al.,
1994). Another feature emphasized at the time is the multiplicity of objectives in
entrepreneurial education with respect to what students should learn. This issue was
considered to pose significant design problems, leading to a call for the need to tailor the
programme content to specific segments of student groups (Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994a;
Gorman et al., 1997). In addition, some reviews highlight the increasing use of
unconventional experiential pedagogies and teaching methods (Gorman et al., 1997;
Solomon et al., 1994), thereby starting to emphasize the critical role of experience when
designing how to teach entrepreneurship.
In the 2000s, literature reviews addressing entrepreneurial education continued to report
various challenges for entrepreneurial education, such as how to gain academic legitimacy
(e.g. Kuratko, 2005) and what entrepreneurship means when implemented in educational
settings (Henry et al., 2005a; Pittaway and Cope, 2007a). The scholarly debate around what
different aspects of entrepreneurship can be taught and how to teach these aspects became
more intense (Henry et al., 2005a; Kuratko, 2005). The review by Henry et al. (2005b)
concludes that certain skills can be taught through a traditional didactic approach, while
creative and innovative aspects require experiential pedagogical approaches. In addition,
Pittaway and Cope (2007a) suggest that the available empirical evidence supports the
assumption that entrepreneurial education has an influence on students’ propensity and
intentionality for entrepreneurship, while there is a degree of uncertainty when it comes to
whether and to what extent this translates into subsequent entrepreneurial behaviour.
One particular feature highlighted in the reviews from the 2000s is that the research
debate on pedagogy in entrepreneurial education has run ahead of theoretical developments.
Henry et al. (2005a) conclude that the rigour of designing courses will be weakened without
consensus on definitions and increased theoretical rigour when conducting research. In a
similar vein, Pittaway and Cope (2007a) argue that research on entrepreneurial education
has to a large extent occurred in isolation from other related scholarly disciplines, which has
weakened its theoretical development. To address this limitation, they call for more
inclusive approaches that can provide a stronger theoretical foundation within research on
entrepreneurial education, for example, by examining concepts and approaches within adult
learning theory.
IJEBR Reviews on entrepreneurial education conducted since 2010 have increasingly started to
apply meta and systematic review techniques (e.g. Bae et al., 2014; Baptista and Naia, 2015;
Martin et al., 2013; Mwasalwiba, 2010; Rideout and Gray, 2013; Sirelkhatim and Gangi,
2015), which may reflect the considerably larger body of research that has now been
produced. A common observation in many of these contemporary reviews is that the field
has shifted from a relatively narrow “start-up view” and entrepreneurship is increasingly
understood as a relatively broad concept that includes a much wider set of contexts where
individuals can engage in and practice entrepreneurship (e.g. Mwasalwiba, 2010; Naia et al.,
2014, 2015; Sirelkhatim and Gangi, 2015). However, research on entrepreneurial education
has not produced any consistent body of knowledge that can provide proper guidance with
respect to appropriate content and teaching methods for different kinds of entrepreneurial
education (Fayolle, 2013). Instead, educators have to decide themselves which pedagogical
approaches best suit their particular teaching contexts.
Contemporary literature reviews also provide little knowledge of how a broader concept of
enterprising that goes beyond starting up a new venture is related to different entrepreneurial
education objectives and outcomes. Mwasalwiba (2010) points out that the diversity of target
groups in entrepreneurial education creates a non-alignment between what educators and
other stakeholders wish to achieve. This is particularly evident when looking at the indicators
typically applied in research on the impact of entrepreneurial education. Much of this research
uses short-term and highly subjective impact measures, such as the development of
entrepreneurial competencies and intentions (Martin et al., 2013; Nabi et al., 2017). However,
there is a scarcity of literature pertaining to impact in the form of entrepreneurial behaviours,
both with respect to “narrow” start-up measures such as engaging in new venture creation, or
in a broader sense such as developing an entrepreneurial identity and becoming more
“entrepreneurial” across contexts (Nabi et al., 2017).
Overall, the empirical evidence indicates that entrepreneurial education seems to
enhance entrepreneurial competencies, while having mixed or limited effects on
entrepreneurial intentions (Bae et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2013; Naia et al., 2014). In this
respect, the reviews also identify a number of methodological weaknesses (Martin et al.,
2013; Rideout and Gray, 2013), which call for increased awareness of issues related to
research design in order to more clearly delineate the impact of entrepreneurial education.
However, Nabi et al. (2017) emphasize the need to not only blame the inconsistencies in
research findings on methodological issues but also on the pedagogical methods that
underpin entrepreneurial education. Ideally, research on entrepreneurial education should
be embedded in a broader theoretical discussion of the extent to which various pedagogical
approaches and teaching methods may require different impact indicators (e.g. Fayolle and
Gailly, 2008).
In sum, entrepreneurship as an academic discipline and teaching subject has seen
tremendous growth during the past decades (Landström, 2010), which is evident from the
considerable increase in the number of courses, faculty positions, PhD programmes, academic
journals and funded centres devoted to entrepreneurship (Finkle and Deeds, 2001; Klandt,
2004; Kuratko, 2005). This development calls for a clearer understanding of the meaning of
“pedagogy” (Pittaway and Cope, 2007a) and the basic blocks around which contemporary
entrepreneurial education is built, such as curricula content, target groups and teaching
methods as well as the background and education of instructors who teach entrepreneurship
(Bennett, 2006; Fayolle and Gailly, 2008; Klandt and Volkmann, 2006). However, despite the
contributions made by previous literature reviews, an important question still remains: How
have the basic pedagogical building blocks that make up the foundation of entrepreneurial
education research evolved over time within the scholarly community?
In the remainder of this paper, we will address this issue by synthesizing and
conceptualizing how research has evolved with regard to pedagogical development in
entrepreneurial education over the past decades. Guided by our definition of pedagogy (e.g. Evolution of
Murphy, 2008) and building on past scholarly contributions (i.e. Fayolle and Gailly, 2008; pedagogy
Hindle, 2007; Johannisson, 1991), we address four interrelated questions: who is involved as
instructors, what content is included in entrepreneurial education, to whom entrepreneurial
education is targeted and how education is conducted in terms of teaching methods. We
define the process of evolution in line with the framework presented by Aldrich (1999),
where emergence and persistence are seen as inseparable issues that produce patterned
change in evolving systems (see also Aldrich and Martinez, 2001; Eckhardt and Ciuchta,
2008). By focussing on evolution as a process, we thus seek to better understand how
pedagogical developments operate over time in the context of entrepreneurial education.

The systematic review methodology

Our analysis is based on 395 articles published or available in press from January 1980 to
December 2018 in 78 academic journals (Table AI). To enable an in-depth analysis of the
literature based on a replicable and transparent review process, we followed systematic
review methodology (Pittaway and Cope, 2007a; Tranfield et al., 2003). Guided by our
research purpose, our systematic review has been influenced by a configurative approach
where we focussed on finding patterns in the data provided by the heterogeneity of the
sample (Gough et al., 2012). Gough et al. (2012) argue that there are important conceptual and
practical differences between different types of systematic reviews, where they distinguish
between aggregative and configurative reviews. Overall, aggregative reviews collect
empirical data to describe and test predefined concepts, while configurative reviews try to
interpret and understand particular phenomenon.
The main steps in the preparation of our systematic review include: planning the review;
conducting the review; and reporting and dissemination (Tranfield et al., 2003). We began
planning the review process by setting research objectives and defining the conceptual
boundaries of our study. “Education” was defined in a broad and inclusive sense as the
action or process of facilitating learning in a formal setting under the guidance of
instructors, or the knowledge and development resulting from such an educational process.
As the literature is inconclusive on a universal definition of what “entrepreneurial[1]” means
when implemented in educational settings (e.g. Bridge, 2017; Gibb, 1987; Pittaway and Cope,
2007a; Ronstadt, 1985), we encountered difficulties in clearly defining “entrepreneurial
education”. However, we followed the advice of Örtenblad (2010) by seeking to understand
“what is done and/or written under the headings or concepts” and what is meant “in general
terms” when scholars report research on entrepreneurial education. A coding structure was
developed to enable the collection and standardization of information about the source and
full reference, including: author names, the institutions and the countries where authors
were situated, main topic area, theoretical frameworks and reference theories used,
classification of research methods and summaries of main findings including the main
research questions and their answers.
To build a comprehensive database of articles on entrepreneurial education we used
specific inclusion criteria. In line with our research question, we first established a time frame
for our review, starting in 1980 as entrepreneurship was beginning to emerge as an academic
field[2]. Second, we set our search parameters to focus on peer-reviewed academic journal
articles to enhance the quality of search results (e.g. Costa et al., 2016). Moreover, only journals
publishing articles in English were included. However, we did not include open-access
journals due to issues of rating their quality. Third, we identified the following bibliographical
databases to match our demands for coverage and full article access: Business source
complete (BSC) and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). We then identified a
series of keywords that were developed into Boolean search terms and entered into the
electronic databases. Keywords used in the search were: entrepreneurship education (or)
IJEBR enterprise education (or) entrepreneurial education (or) action-based entrepreneurship
education (or) practice-based entrepreneurship education (or) action-oriented entrepreneurship
education (or) project-based entrepreneurship education. The search generated 1329 hits and
974 were excluded, resulting in a sample of 355 from the database search.
All titles and abstracts identified in our search were carefully examined with reference to
our review objectives. In line with these, we included studies relevant for understanding
approaches and methods for teaching entrepreneurship in courses and programs at
universities. In this process, we excluded studies that were not dealing with entrepreneurial
education organized by universities and offered to (enrolled) students, for example studies
addressing business education and training programmes that targeted practicing
entrepreneurs and small business managers (e.g. Tait, 1990). While this may lead to the
risk of excluding a few scholarly contributions that could be relevant for entrepreneurial
education pedagogy, especially early publications from Europe where the difference between
entrepreneurship and small businesses education was less distinct (Landström et al., 1997),
we deemed this demarcation satisfactory with respect to the overall purpose of the paper.
Articles dealing with entrepreneurial education were kept in the sample. Articles that
referred to entrepreneurial education in the abstract but did not address the issue in any
substantial depth in the main text were excluded. We then conducted a manual search of the
bibliographies of the remaining articles to identify other relevant studies that could be
included in the review (e.g. Webster and Watson, 2002), which resulted in an additional
40 articles. This process resulted in a final database of 395 academic articles reporting on
entrepreneurial education from January 1980 to December 2018.
Our analysis follows a configurative approach (Gough et al., 2012), where we inductively
organized the patterns that emerged from the data. This involved coding and extracting
theoretical discussions and empirical evidence from the articles and grouping them into
different time periods with reference to our analytical framework. A full text review of all
articles was conducted together with systematic documentation of the available information
in accordance with our coding structure. Following the recommendations of Kitchenham
et al. (2009) and Gioia et al. (2013), the members of the research team assumed different but
complementary roles in coding and analyzing the data. The first author extracted the data
and led the inductive coding of the data into concepts, while the second author checked the
extracts and took a more “outsider” perspective to provide focus in relation to the emerging
key constructs and their links to the existing body of research on entrepreneurial education.
Disagreements were discussed until consensus was achieved. The patterns that emerged
from this analysis provided us with a grounded overview of how pedagogy in research on
entrepreneurial education became apparent and developed since the 1980s.

Analysis: evolution of pedagogy in research on entrepreneurial education

In this section, we present our analysis via four analytical building blocks: instructors (who),
content (what), target ( for whom) and teaching methods (how). To illustrate the evolution of
the field over time, we follow the development phases identified in Landström (2010). A
summary of the analysis is presented in Table I.

Who (instructors)
“Who” refers to the individuals involved as instructors in entrepreneurial education (Fayolle
and Gailly, 2008; Hindle, 2007). In the 1980s, few instructors specialized in entrepreneurship
and there was little integration between teaching and research. Courses were typically short
term and took place one after another in a traditional manner, which resulted in instructors
having limited time for research activities. During this early phase, who was teaching the
subject was based more on circumstances than devotion to entrepreneurship as a scholarly
field. The lack of PhD programmes in entrepreneurship created additional barriers between
 1980s: teacher-centred 1990s: process-centred 2000s: context- 2010s: learner-
Evolution of
Time period period period centred period centred period pedagogy
Who – Few instructors Appearance of Instructors with a Instructors as
instructors specialized in instructors with a PhD background in facilitators
entrepreneurship, mostin entrepreneurship entrepreneurship Added emphasis on
having a general Increase of instructors dominate combining
business school conducting Increasing use of researchers and
background entrepreneurship research findings in practitioners in
Little integration research teaching teaching
between teaching and Increasing integration
research between teaching
activities and research
What – Teaching about Teaching about but Teaching about for, Teaching about, for,
content entrepreneurship also for and in in and through
No consensus on content entrepreneurship entrepreneurship entrepreneurship
General management Professional Spiritual dimension Theoretical
knowledge, e.g., dimension Cognitive and dimension
marketing, strategy Practical aspects of resource lean Broad alignment of
managing new or theories of venture main educational
small businesses creation content
For whom – No active search for Promotion of High visibility in Two paths; a
target students entrepreneurship as an higher education specialized
Little outreach based on academic discipline Focus on students entrepreneurship
assumptions of self- Increasing emphasis who may become path and a broader
selection on finding prospective entrepreneurs entrepreneuring
students path
How – Didactic teaching Didactic and action- Experiential learning Experiential and
teaching methods oriented teaching (action and constructivist
methods Lectures, guest lectures methods reflection) perspective on
and case studies Business plans, Increasing use of real learning
Business plans become lectures, guest lectures life ventures as Entrepreneurship as
a core feature in and case studies vehicles for learning a method
teaching Increasing use of Lean start-up and
simulation business model
canvas
Key Ronstadt (1985), Gibb (1993), Garavan Katz (2003), Mwasalwiba (2010),
contributors McMullan and Long and O’Cinneide Peterman and Neck and Greene
to the field (1987), Gibb (1987), Hills (1994a), Gartner and Kennedy (2003), (2011) Martin et al.
(1988) Vesper (1994), Gorman Kuratko (2005), (2013), Nabi et al.
et al. (1997) Pittaway and Cope (2017) Table I.
(2007a) Analytical framework

teaching and research (Zeithaml and Rice, 1987). Another limitation was the shortage of
studies related to the effectiveness of teaching in entrepreneurship courses (Sexton and
Bowman-Upton, 1988). In practice, instructors were more concerned with teaching
entrepreneurship based on their disciplinary backgrounds rather than focussing on issues
considered important in entrepreneurship research (Curran and Stanworth, 1989; Sexton and
Bowman, 1984). Overall, during this period there was a growing urge to create specialized
faculties that could advance the teaching of entrepreneurship (Plaschka and Welsch, 1990).
The 1990s mark the appearance of instructors who were specialized in entrepreneurship,
providing opportunities to better match scholarly expertise with the subject domain to be
taught. The number of research-active instructors also increased, as did the integration of
teaching activities with research (Solomon and Fernald, 1991; Solomon et al., 1994).
Entrepreneurship as a distinct scholarly domain began to legitimize itself in the academic
community (Katz, 1991) and considerable investments were made in the educational
IJEBR infrastructure (e.g. Katz, 2003), which supported an inflow of young entrepreneurship
scholars dedicated to advancing the field. In comparison with the 1980s, there was an
increased focus on differentiation from mainstream management practices and on finding
scholars who were specialized in the domain of entrepreneurship.
Instructors with a background in entrepreneurship began to dominate the education in
the 2000s. There was an increased use of research findings in teaching and advancements
were continually adopted (Fiet, 2001a). There was also a widespread use of practicing
entrepreneurs in the classroom for guest lectures based on their own personal experiences,
which created intentional variation among instructors seeking to bridge the gap between
theory and practice (Kuratko, 2005; Solomon, 2007). However, the continued growth of
entrepreneurial education resulted in a persistent demand for a faculty and calls to
introduce PhD programmes in entrepreneurship to strengthen the inflow of new junior
scholars (Brush et al., 2003; Katz, 2003).
In the 2010s, there has been a growing acknowledgement of instructors acting as
facilitators rather than teachers due to a gradual shift towards more learner-centred
approaches in pedagogical discussions on entrepreneurial education (Mueller and
Anderson, 2014; Robinson et al., 2016). Attention is also directed towards the interplay
between individuals and society in the learning process (Hjorth, 2011; Mwasalwiba, 2010;
Taatila, 2010; Williams Middleton and Donnellon, 2014). However, discussions about what
entrepreneurial education actually implies and how to educate in the subject have resulted
in little consensus on what roles instructors play in entrepreneurial education (e.g. Fayolle
and Gailly, 2008; Toding and Venesaar, 2018). Likewise, there is added emphasis on the need
to combine research-active faculty and practitioners when teaching.

What (content)
“What” refers to the orientation and structure of the teaching content in entrepreneurial
education (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008; Johannisson, 1991). In the 1980s, no particular
orientation or structure dominated the debate. The teaching content primarily delivered
knowledge about entrepreneurship, following the categorization developed by Jamieson
(1984) about, for and in. Teaching was greatly influenced by contemporary management
theories adapted to new and small business settings (McMullan and Long, 1987). There was
a large degree of homogeneity in courses (Hills, 1988; Zeithaml and Rice, 1987), where
universities typically offered one general course aimed at new business development,
sequenced with a follow-up course where students engaged in a consultancy experience
(Zeithaml and Rice, 1987).
In the 1990s, the professional dimension (e.g. Fayolle and Gailly, 2008) began to dominate
the pedagogical debate about content, with focus on providing would-be entrepreneurs with
practical knowledge, such as know-what, know-how and know-who ( Johannisson, 1991).
Teaching still primarily delivered knowledge about entrepreneurship, but there was a gradual
increase in efforts aimed at developing knowledge for entrepreneurship. Teaching content
was greatly influenced by the practical aspects of starting, managing and developing a new or
small business, which were typically overlooked or less emphasized in other business courses
(Gartner and Vesper, 1994). Course readings were varied and diverse, where Gartner and
Vesper (1994) identified no less than 103 different books used in entrepreneurship teaching.
The spiritual dimension (e.g. Fayolle and Gailly, 2008) was far more explicit in the
pedagogical debate on teaching content in the 2000s, with a focus on helping entrepreneurs
to position themselves in time and space with regard to entrepreneurial situations, such as
know-why and know-when ( Johannisson, 1991). Courses provided knowledge about and for
entrepreneurship, but also in entrepreneurship, which reflects a growing maturity and an
emerging specialization in entrepreneurial education (e.g. Fiet, 2001a, b; Jones, 2006;
Pittaway and Cope, 2007b). An intensified stream of research suggested that
entrepreneurship should be connected to learning-by-doing (Cope and Watts, 2000; Politis, Evolution of
2005), thereby emphasizing the importance of lived experience (Rae and Carswell, 2001). pedagogy
Teaching content was greatly influenced by approaches such as effectuation (Sarasvathy,
2001) and learning from failure (Politis and Gabrielsson, 2009), which are concepts that
gradually found their way into entrepreneurial education (e.g. Honig, 2004).
In the 2010s, the theoretical dimension (e.g. Fayolle and Gailly, 2008) became much more
apparent in the debate, with a focus on theories and scientific knowledge useful for
understanding entrepreneurship. At the same time entrepreneurial education is becoming
much more diverse, with a wide range of different courses providing knowledge about, for,
in as well as through entrepreneurship (Hoppe et al., 2017). The discussion of teaching
content is less intense compared to previous periods and there seems to be an emerging
alignment of the main educational components that have been retained in entrepreneurial
education[3] (Mwasalwiba, 2010). However, the discussion on what types of knowledge can
be developed through entrepreneurial education has intensified (Haase and Lautenschläger,
2011; Sánchez, 2011; Williams Middleton and Donnellon, 2014). This also includes the
differences between the narrow “start-up” perspective and the broader “enterprising”
perspective (cf. Jones and Iredale, 2010; Jones and Matlay, 2011; Neck and Corbett, 2018).
Overall, the focus has moved beyond curricula-oriented discussions of what to teach in the
classroom towards how the teaching content can stimulate student learning.

For whom (target)

“For whom” refers to the primary target audience for entrepreneurial education. There was
no intentional search for students in the 1980s and virtually no outreach activities. Instead,
there was an implicit belief that students interested in entrepreneurship would find
their way to programmes and courses through a process of self-selection (Brown, 1990) or
“self-placing” (Zeithaml and Rice, 1987). As a result, pedagogical discussions in this period
did not address particular target audiences, but instead referred to the general population of
students, despite the potential variation that could have been addressed. For example,
Weinrauch (1984) argued that the field would benefit by looking at adult learning pedagogy
to make entrepreneurial education more suitable for the characteristics of the
entrepreneurial segment in society.
Two distinct target markets for entrepreneurial education emerged at the beginning of
the 1990s. The first consists of students considering entrepreneurship as a subject in their
business degree programme, while the second comprises students who reside outside
traditional educational settings but seek lifelong learning (Solomon and Fernald, 1991).
In line with this, there was also an increasing emphasis on finding prospective students with
the aim of making them aware of the opportunity to develop their entrepreneurial
capabilities and attitudes (Gibb, 1993; Jack and Anderson, 1999; Solomon et al., 1994), thus
creating a more intentional and active search. Overall, during this period there was a
massive growth in the supply of entrepreneurial education (Katz, 2003), fuelled by the
perception that entrepreneurship is an important driver of economic advancement and
change in society ( Jack and Anderson, 1999).
Entrepreneurial education gained relatively high visibility in higher education during the
2000s, especially in business schools, which appear to have taken on the role of promoting
the subject by emphasizing it as a way to develop the personal entrepreneurial capabilities
and attitudes of students. But the subject is also reaching beyond business schools, as
courses and programmes are being established within, for example, arts, engineering,
medicine and health (Katz, 2008), which creates new avenues for reaching student
populations other than the traditional business student. The large variation of programmes
and courses at different faculties creates specialization and the target market is split into
different categories with specific aims, such as action-based entrepreneurship (Rasmussen
IJEBR and Sørheim, 2006), social entrepreneurship (Tracey and Phillips, 2007) and the broader
notion of enterprise education ( Jones, 2009; Peterman and Kennedy, 2003). Given the
diversity of programmes and courses both within the business school context and beyond, it
is very much up to the students to choose whether they want to develop knowledge about,
for or in entrepreneurship. During the 2000s, there was high differentiation in the subject,
which was most likely related to the exponential growth seen during this period and the
general development of higher education (e.g. Katz, 2003, 2008), but the policies promoting
entrepreneurialism over the decades have also had an impact on students’ willingness to
pursue entrepreneurship studies (e.g. Pittaway and Cope, 2007a).
There is a very wide variety of target groups discussed in research on entrepreneurial
education in the 2010s (Deacon and Harris, 2011). However, two distinct paths seem to
emerge in the debate, creating variations within the field. One path is more specialized and
targets specific segments of students interested in an entrepreneurial career. It is dominated
by new venture creation-oriented training (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2015), but also
includes social and societal entrepreneurship (Howorth et al., 2012) and corporate
entrepreneurship education (Kuratko, 2005; Kuratko and Morris, 2018). The other path is
broader and targets the entire student population. This “enterprising” path is largely
promoted through an enterprising perspective (Hoppe et al., 2017; Jones and Iredale, 2010;
Jones et al., 2018) and the development of an entrepreneurial mindset (Daniel, 2016; Laalo
and Heinonen, 2016) and aims to develop the students’ entrepreneurial knowledge, skills and
attitudes (Gibb, 2002a), regardless of their future occupation ( Jones, 2010; Jones et al., 2014).
The two paths are interconnected (see e.g. Ball, 1989; Gibb, 1987), as their point of departure
is the creation of an understanding of the behaviour of small business owners and
entrepreneurs, but they have also been highly influenced by policies promoting the
importance of developing entrepreneurialism among the population (e.g. Hägg and Schölin,
2018; Laalo and Heinonen, 2016; Lackéus, 2017; Matricano, 2017). Currently, there is a lack of
consensus about what target entrepreneurial education should aim for, which creates
inconclusiveness in terms of where the field is heading and how to address target audiences
(e.g. Bridge, 2017; Jones et al., 2018; Neck and Corbett, 2018).
The observed developments in how to target different student groups is largely following
policy reports when promoting entrepreneurial education (e.g. Ball, 1989; European Commission,
2013). There is a change in focus, from an early start-up view where Birch’s (1979) job generation
report created room for promoting the subject to develop more entrepreneurs in the 1980s and
1990s (Ronstadt, 1985; Solomon et al., 1994), towards the promotion of entrepreneurialism by
changing norms in society (see e.g. Laalo and Heinonen, 2016; Lackéus, 2017). The reach to
different student groups has increased, and today entrepreneurial education aims to be visible
from kindergarten and up to PhD (cf. Moberg, 2014).

How (teaching methods)

“How” refers to the teaching methods used in entrepreneurial education. Entrepreneurial
education in the 1980s followed a traditional didactic approach to teaching (e.g.
Thorndike, 1921) where the instructor designs and controls the learning situation. Popular
teaching methods included lectures, guest lectures, case studies and assigned reading
(Hills, 1988). However, there seemed to be widespread recognition that traditional teaching
methods were unsuitable for entrepreneurial education (Sexton and Bowman, 1984;
Weinrauch, 1984) and calls were made to move away from the traditional way of teaching
the subject (Gibb, 1987). Instead, there was an emphasis on “taking action” by including
experiential exercises and working with or alongside actual entrepreneurs (Ronstadt,
1985; Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1987, 1988). The use of business plans emerged as a
distinct teaching method, which became imprinted as a core feature in the “narrow” view
of entrepreneurial education (Hills, 1988; see also Honig, 2004).
 The interest in action-oriented teaching increased in the 1990s and developed alongside Evolution of
the traditional instructor-centred teaching approach. Business plan writing, lectures, guest pedagogy
lectures, case studies and assigned reading were commonly used as teaching methods
(Gartner and Vesper, 1994). In this period, scholars moved towards a more unified view on
the need to have a practice-oriented focus to reflect “real-world environments” (Solomon
et al., 1994). The selection of methods for teaching entrepreneurship seems to have been
driven internally among scholars. There was also a gradual shift in favour of more
action-oriented approaches aimed at stimulating the active engagement of entrepreneurship
students, reflected by, for example, the significant rise in the use of simulations as a teaching
method (Gundry and Kickul, 1996; Katz, 1999; Wolfe and Bruton, 1994).
Entrepreneurial education during the 2000s became increasingly embedded in
experience-based learning (Dhliwayo, 2008; Honig, 2004; Pittaway and Cope, 2007b;
Sherman et al., 2008) and process-driven pedagogies ( Jones, 2006; Löbler, 2006). Teaching
methods varied, but typically included general lectures, presentations and handouts, as well
as video and case study-based learning (Henry et al., 2005a). There seemed to be a large
degree of agreement on retaining more proactive and experiential methods that seek to
mirror entrepreneurial behaviour (e.g. Pittaway and Cope, 2007b). Calls for becoming more
innovative by adopting action-oriented approaches for educating potential entrepreneurs
intensified (Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006; Kuratko, 2005; Rae, 2009) but there was also an
emphasis on finding a mix of experience and theoretical learning (Fiet, 2001a, b; Henry et al.,
2005a). Overall, experiential learning pedagogy gained a firm position in entrepreneurial
education (Dhliwayo, 2008; Pittaway and Cope, 2007b), where real venturing projects and
actual start-ups were seen as the most sophisticated teaching methods for facilitating and
guiding student learning (Rasmussen and Sørheim, 2006).
Advances in entrepreneurship research have influenced entrepreneurial education in the
2010s via the entrepreneurial method and its emphasis on effectuation logic (Neck and
Greene, 2011; Sarasvathy and Venkataraman, 2011). More rational and practice-based ideas
and approaches have also been transformed into teaching methods, such as design-based
thinking and lean start-up (e.g. Daniel, 2016; Harms, 2015; Penaluna et al., 2012; Rauch and
Hulsink, 2015) and the business model canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), which
creates a large inflow of highly varied models that influence the teaching of
entrepreneurship. However, a few scholars argue that action-oriented and practice-based
approaches have raced far ahead of theory and call for a critical stance towards their
pedagogical and theoretical roots (Fayolle, 2013; Rideout and Gray, 2013). For this reason
the role of action, experience and reflection for learning are more intensely discussed
(Gielnik et al., 2015; Hägg and Kurczewska, 2016; Kassean et al., 2015). Overall, the period
marks a shift from how to teach entrepreneurship towards how students can learn valuable
lessons for life through entrepreneurial education. The common characteristic among those
pedagogical methods that have been retained over time is a focus on learning from and
through experience (e.g. Kassean et al., 2015), but an intensified discussion has emerged on
what entrepreneurial experience implies when addressed in different entrepreneurial
education contexts (e.g. Jones et al., 2018; Neck and Corbett, 2018).

Development of pedagogy in research on entrepreneurial education

Our analysis suggests that the scholarly discourse on pedagogy in research on
entrepreneurial education has developed from teacher-guided instructional models in the
1980s towards more constructivist perspectives (e.g. Moshman, 1982; Piaget, 2000), where
contemporary pedagogical discussions centre on the theoretical and philosophical
foundations of experience-based teaching and learning (e.g. Kyrö, 2015; Taatila, 2010).
Main theoretical influences come from experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984),
constructivist educational philosophy (Piaget, 2000), experience-based pedagogy
IJEBR (Dewey, 1946), problem-based learning (Barrows and Tramblyn, 1980), situated learning
(Lave and Wenger, 1991) and action learning (Revans, 1982). Although many other learning
theories have made their way into entrepreneurship education, they often relate back to
these intellectual thoughts.
The 1980s can be largely characterized as a teacher-oriented period embedded in
traditional notions of teaching and learning, where instructors were expected to design and
control the learning environment. Pedagogical developments were driven by discussions
about instructional content and classroom delivery. The primary educational challenge that
marks the period can be described as the need to better understand what should be included
and taught in entrepreneurship courses. Concepts such as “action” and “hands-on
experience” were identified as the key for the future development of the field.
The 1990s can be described as an experimentation period, where entrepreneurship
scholars become increasingly interested in experience- and problem-based instructional
techniques and strategies to support classroom learning. Pedagogical developments at this
time were mainly driven by centring on the processes in which entrepreneurship students
are embedded (e.g. Gundry and Kickul, 1996), both new venture creation (e.g. Gartner, 1990)
and individual learning (e.g. Kolb, 1984). The primary educational challenge that marks the
period can be described as the need to better understand the target of entrepreneurship
courses, with a focus on the (learning) process of the entrepreneur.
Scholars continued to develop and justify the uniqueness of entrepreneurial education
during the 2000s, where the research conducted was increasingly recognized as a distinct
field. Pedagogical developments in entrepreneurial education were significantly driven by the
notion of “lived experience”, which emphasizes real-world learning opportunities where
actionable knowledge can be developed and demonstrated through creativity and
collaboration. The primary educational challenge that marks the period is the design of
concrete learning environments for entrepreneurship students to create active and engaging
instructional experiences (e.g. Pittaway and Cope, 2007b; Rae, 2009). At the same time, the
specific and varied contexts where entrepreneurship can be practiced gained recognition (e.g.
start-up entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, technology intensive entrepreneurship,
minority entrepreneurship, ethnic entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, etc.).
During the 2010s, the field has moved towards a student-centred period with a continued
emphasis on action-oriented teaching models (Harms, 2015; Lahn and Erikson, 2016; Macht
and Ball, 2016; Thrane et al., 2016), often embedded in progressive and constructivist
approaches to learning (e.g. Hägg and Kurczewska, 2016; Mueller and Anderson, 2014;
Robinson et al., 2016). The field has also moved beyond traditional start-up conceptions of
entrepreneurship (Mwasalwiba, 2010) and is often discussed from a systemic perspective
where the interplay between the individual and society is highlighted (e.g. Lourenço et al.,
2015; Wyness et al., 2015). A contemporary issue that has emerged is the role of
responsibility building on morals and ethics (e.g. Rae, 2010; Toledano and Karanda, 2017)
following contemporary corporate scandals (e.g. Lehman Brothers, Theranos). However,
there are still ongoing discussions about whether the primary context of entrepreneurial
education should be new venture creation or the development of entrepreneurial life skills
and abilities ( Jones et al., 2014; Lackéus et al., 2016; Neck and Corbett, 2018).
The primary pedagogical challenge that marks contemporary discussions is related to
the issue of making proper assessments and measuring impact (see e.g. Nabi et al., 2017;
Rauch and Hulsink, 2015; Warhuus et al., 2018), both with respect to what entrepreneurship
education should accomplish in terms of student learning and what various stakeholders
(including students) expect in terms of behavioural outcomes (e.g. Duval-Couetil, 2013;
Fayolle and Gailly, 2015).
A stylized description of how pedagogy in research on entrepreneurial education has
developed over the past four decades is presented in Table II. Overall, the main development
seen in entrepreneurial education follows similar patterns as have been seen in research on Evolution of
education in general, where the transition from a traditional approach towards a student- pedagogy
centred approach is also visible (e.g. Brown, 2003; McCombs, 1997).

The evolutionary process of pedagogy in research on entrepreneurial

education
Our analysis suggests that entrepreneurial education has increasingly positioned itself as a
distinct domain by distancing the curricular content from mainstream management
education (e.g. Mwasalwiba, 2010) together with a large variety of pedagogical methods
inspired by both entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship as venture creation as well
as enterprising behaviour (e.g. Corbett, 2005; Gibb, 1987; Jones and Matlay, 2011). The
development of the curricular content and our dimension of what have evolved from an
intentional shift away from management subjects towards an entrepreneurial inspired
curriculum filled with content related to various stages of the entrepreneurial process
(Mwasalwiba, 2010). However, there is a large variation among educators on what literature
to use (Gartner and Vesper, 1994), which can be related to contextual differences in how the
subject domain is viewed. Our analysis revealed two developments related to the content
dimension. One centres on content in the form of what to learn in order to engage in
entrepreneurship, which has evolved to retain the main components related to the start-up
process ( Jones et al., 2017; Mwasalwiba, 2010). The other is an increased variation that
occurred in the late 2000s and onwards related to different approaches to entrepreneurial
education (Hoppe et al., 2017; Jones and Iredale, 2010). The internal selection based on
understanding the entrepreneurial process and what content to include has been broadened
and the influence of enterprising as a pedagogical approach spanning multiple subject
domains has created new challenges for scholars about what entrepreneurial education
implies in relation to content. The increased variation has intensified the discussion on what
types of knowledge can be developed, which is presently being debated but with little
evidence of consensus ( Jones et al., 2018; Neck and Corbett, 2018).
Related to our dimension of how, the evolutionary process has included both intentional
and blind variation (Aldrich and Ruef, 2006) of pedagogical methods. An example of blind
variation is the continuous internal critique of not bridging the gap between educational
research and entrepreneurial education research (Béchard and Grégoire, 2005; Bechard and
Toulouse, 1998; Fayolle, 2013; Henry et al., 2005a, b; Pittaway and Cope, 2007a; Rideout and
Gray, 2013), potentially leading to new and alternative forms of inventing the “wheel” when
it comes to discussions on learning from and through experience. However, the blind
variation is also a source for the scholarly curiosity necessary for developing close ties to
practice and ensuring that the education is seen as interesting by students (Fox et al., 2018;

1980s: teacher-centred 1990s: process- 2000s: context-centred 2010s: learner-centred

Time period period centred period period period

Pedagogical Traditional (didactic) Centred on the Added emphasis on Constructivist

development approach to learning process of learning real-world learning (progressive) approach to
opportunities learning
Main Instructor and the Learner and the Learning environment Interaction between
educational content to be learning process learner and (broader)
perspective delivered society (responsibility) Table II.
Educational Deciding what should Understanding the Incorporating hands- Making assessments and Evolution of
challenge be included in target of on experience in measuring impact of pedagogy in research
entrepreneurship entrepreneurship entrepreneurship entrepreneurship on entrepreneurship
education education education education education
IJEBR Gundry and Kickul, 1996; Solomon et al., 1994; Winkler et al., 2018). But there are also
examples of intentional variation to further position the scholarly domain, such as the use of
simulations (Wolfe and Bruton, 1994), the inflow of experiential methods and authentic
alignment building on the idea of constructive alignment by Biggs and Tang (see Macht and
Ball, 2016), as well as current influences from the entrepreneurial method (Neck and Greene,
2011), effectuation (Lackéus et al., 2016), lean start-up and design thinking (Daniel, 2016;
Harms, 2015), but also co-creation and team-based learning (Arpiainen and Kurczewska,
2017; Chen and Agrawal, 2018; Warhuus et al., 2017) to name but a few. However, while
contemporary research on entrepreneurship education consists of a relatively diverse pool
of different theories and approaches, this diversity seems to play an important role in
driving the scholarly debate of what to include in the curriculum and how to identify
appropriate learning outcomes (Mandel and Noyes, 2016; Scott et al., 2016).
Despite the importance of generating a high inflow of scholars and keeping the scholarly
domain interesting, later phases in the evolutionary process are also marked by an increased
internal heterogeneity based on the inconclusiveness between the narrow “start-up” view
(cf. Neck and Corbett, 2018) and the broader “enterprising” view (cf. Jones and Iredale, 2010).
This inconclusiveness has increased in intensity and is clouding the previous building of the
subject domain seen up until the mid-2000s. The internal heterogeneity between the two
views on entrepreneurial education is illustrated by the construct of struggle (Aldrich and
Ruef, 2006). A current call from scholars, especially in relation to a narrower view, is the
focus on legitimacy, i.e., how to build a more legitimate scholarly field (Fayolle, 2013; Fayolle
et al., 2016; Neck and Corbett, 2018; Rideout and Gray, 2013). A main argument is to return to
the core phenomenon of new venture creation (Neck and Corbett, 2018), which would narrow
the scope of the subject domain and potentially disregard the development achieved by
research focussed on enterprising behaviour (e.g. Jones and Iredale, 2010; Jones, 2009; Jones
and Matlay, 2011; Jones et al., 2018). This is an ongoing debate in the field and a very current
topic that creates a divide. Perhaps an idea would be to create two more distinct definitions
by going back to the discussion by Ball (1989).

What works in entrepreneurial education?

In general, there seems to be a broad consensus in the scholarly literature that entrepreneurial
education may increase the desire and ability of individuals to grow and adapt knowledge and
skills in order to cope more readily with non-routine tasks and continuous change (Arpiainen
and Kurczewska, 2017; Fiet, 2001a, b; Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994a; Haase and
Lautenschläger, 2011; Lindberg et al., 2017; Neck and Corbett, 2018). However, this process
depends on a range of factors that may support or impede learning (e.g. Béchard and
Toulouse, 1991; Fayolle and Gailly, 2008), where the ultimate responsibility to learn rests with
the individual (Hindle, 2007). As argued by Fayolle (2008), “it is indeed possible to teach and
educate people in entrepreneurship. However, like in any discipline it is impossible to tell
whether these professionals will be talented or not, just as it is impossible to guarantee a priori
the success of many courses of action”. In line with this argumentation, it is possible to
observe a shift in the literature where over time scholarly discussions have moved from
addressing the issue of teachability towards emphasizing learnability, a development also
addressed in general education (e.g. Biesta, 2004, 2009). While the teachability discussion
centres on the suitability of entrepreneurship as a teaching subject (Hindle, 2007), the issue of
learnability address more fundamental pedagogical questions about how learning can be
developed as well as how and why different teaching methods may support the learning
process and lead to specific learning outcomes.
The gradual shift can also be observed in the philosophical underpinnings of
entrepreneurship education: from the early traditionalist focus on the “instruction towards
knowledge” to the emphasis on the “co-construction of knowledge” in contemporary debates.
Much of the discussion in research on entrepreneurship education today leans on pragmatist Evolution of
philosophical thoughts (Kyrö, 2015) and constructivist perspectives on learning (Donnellon pedagogy
et al., 2014; Jones, 2006; Mueller and Anderson, 2014). From this stance, the learner is seen as
responsible for her/his own learning process and knowledge is understood as developing
through dynamic and iterative transactions (co-creation) with peers, facilitators and the
surrounding environment (Higgins et al., 2013; Warhuus et al., 2017), closely related to views
held in experiential education (Roberts, 2015). In this regard, the scholarly field of
entrepreneurial education seems to be maturing and legitimatizing itself by building up a
knowledge base largely embedded in pragmatist and constructivist philosophies.
To conclude, there is still an internal struggle that acts both as a developmental engine
and a barrier to building legitimacy to the scholarly domain (see e.g. Fayolle et al., 2016;
Jones et al., 2014; Warhuus et al., 2018). Judging from the debate, the prevailing conception is
that entrepreneurship is teachable and students use the knowledge, skills and abilities
gained from education both in the start-up context and in other occupational contexts
(see e.g. Jones et al., 2017; Matlay, 2008; Neck and Corbett, 2018).
In relation to the broader view on developing enterprising behaviour ( Jones and Iredale,
2010), it has been argued important for increasing employability among the coming
generations ( Jones and Matlay, 2011; Jones and Penaluna, 2013; Jones et al., 2018), following
the shift towards an entrepreneurial society (e.g. Ball, 1989; European Commission, 2013;
Keat and Abercrombie, 2011). Enterprising has developed into a pedagogical idea that could
be implemented as a learning process among different subject domains ( Jones and Iredale,
2010; Jones and Penaluna, 2013), which have also moved its meaning beyond the previous
subject domain orientation ( Jones et al., 2014).
However, the continuous grouping of these two different views also constitutes a barrier
to further legitimacy building and the scholarly domain is still standing at a crossroads
(see e.g. Fayolle, 2008), where scholars argue for either a narrow or a broad view to progress
the field (e.g. Jones et al., 2018; Neck and Corbett, 2018). Hence, what will be retained to build
further legitimacy is still an open debate that we do not consider finalized, but rather
entering a new phase of intense discussion in the field.

Direction for future research

In view of our findings and discussion, we can identify at least four areas with the potential
to guide future inquiries in research on entrepreneurial education. The areas emanate from
the analytical structure of our “who-is-doing-what-for-whom-and-how” framework and will
be further elaborated below.

Who – the role of the instructor

The systematic review suggests that more research is needed about the “who” of
entrepreneurial education. Discussions on pedagogy in research on entrepreneurial
education have mainly focussed on curriculum design and teaching content (what), learning
processes of student entrepreneurs ( for whom) and the implementation and use of various
teaching methods (how). On the other hand, attention to the instructor has been scarce and
the few contributions that exist are largely descriptive. As a result, there are few theoretical
insights about the role of the instructor in the context of entrepreneurial education (e.g.
Foliard et al., 2019; Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010), for example, instructors’ perceptions and
teaching philosophies (Toding and Venesaar, 2018), the extent to which research-active
academics facilitate different kinds of learning outcome compared to practicing
professionals and whether differences in the level and form of education, categories of
learning outcomes and the specific focus of the course or programme call for different
instructor competencies and skills to effectively guide students in the learning process
IJEBR (e.g. Fayolle and Gailly, 2008; Rennemo, 2015). Answers to these questions may provide
valuable leads to a better understanding of entrepreneurial education pedagogy.

What – programme design and teaching content across time and space
Our systematic review also suggests that more research is needed about the “what” of
entrepreneurial education when it comes to how programme design and implementation
vary across temporal and spatial contexts. Despite the fact that we identified a large number
of studies addressing what to include when teaching entrepreneurship, most of them were
conducted and discussed in isolated contexts. There are few comparative studies of
entrepreneurial education (e.g. Lima et al., 2015; Walter and Block, 2016) and there is also a
general shortage of studies that follow entrepreneurial education over time, both
longitudinally and through pre- and post-tests (e.g. Gielnik et al., 2015; Lyons et al., 2015).
Overall, this contextual isolation limits pedagogical debates about best practices,
assessments and the impact of entrepreneurial education in the international scholarly
community (Fayolle and Gailly, 2015; Rideout and Gray, 2013). Given the global reach of
entrepreneurial education (Coduras Martínez et al., 2010), research addressing these issues is
greatly needed.

For whom – the learning needs of entrepreneurial students

Future research should also explore the “for whom” of entrepreneurial education by seeking
to better connect the understanding of the learning needs of entrepreneurial students to
research on adult education and instructional science (e.g. Jones, 2009; Lahn and Erikson,
2016; Macht and Ball, 2016; Robinson et al., 2016). Contemporary entrepreneurial education
is largely embedded in constructivist and experiential learning theories (de Villiers
Scheepers et al., 2018; Kyrö, 2015), where students are encouraged to learn entrepreneurship
through opportunity taking, experimenting and making mistakes (e.g. Arpiainen and
Kurczewska, 2017; Rasmussen and Sørheim, 2006). While this “learning-by-doing” emphasis
may provide many benefits in the context of entrepreneurial education (Fayolle and Gailly,
2008; Kassean et al., 2015), scholars also need to acknowledge that literature on expert and
novice learning presents compelling evidence that there is a distinct difference between
students when it comes to their ability to comprehend information, which is dependent on
their acquired content knowledge for solving problems (Kirschner et al., 2006). Too much
emphasis on learning-by-doing across entrepreneurial education may, hence, also
potentially act as a barrier to continuity in the learning process (e.g. Sweller, 1988, 2016).
In this respect, entrepreneurial education may benefit from acknowledging and integrating
multiple theories of learning from research on adult education and instructional science to
develop a more holistic perspective on entrepreneurial learning processes within educational
settings (cf. Hägg and Kurczewska, 2018; Macht and Ball, 2016).

How – frameworks for assessment

Our systematic review also suggests a need of intensified research addressing the “how” of
entrepreneurial education specifically related to the development of appropriate assessment
frameworks. The effectiveness and impact of various forms and methods of teaching has for
a long time been largely unquestioned in research on entrepreneurial education, but this is
now increasingly emphasized as a key area of inquiry (Duval-Couetil, 2013; Lyons et al.,
2015). Appropriate assessment frameworks for entrepreneurial education are needed to
increase the reliability and validity of teaching practices and student learning outcomes
(Gedeon and Valliere, 2018; Pittaway and Edwards, 2012), but also to justify the existential
value of entrepreneurial education to various key stakeholders, such as entrepreneurial
students, policy makers and funding bodies (Mwasalwiba, 2010). During the past few
decades entrepreneurial education has been highly innovative and progressive. However, Evolution of
assessment practices have not developed at the same pace as the implementation of new pedagogy
teaching methods (Pittaway et al., 2009; Vorley and Williams, 2016). Existing approaches are
highly context dependent and there is a lack of theoretically grounded and methodologically
sound evaluation and assessment frameworks that can substantiate the impact of
entrepreneurial education across different contexts and programmes (Liñán and Fayolle,
2015; Nabi et al., 2017; Rauch and Hulsink, 2015). The development of assessment
frameworks, which seeks to specify and further develop either the cognitive or the social
constructivist assessment perspective (cf. Warhuus et al., 2018), is consequently a scholarly
area with the potential to make substantive contributions to the field.

Conclusion
This systematic review has examined how research on pedagogical development in
entrepreneurial education has evolved since the 1980s. Our results illustrate how research
on entrepreneurial education over time has developed into a distinct scholarly domain,
guided by a practice-oriented research agenda that has emphasized the need to connect
teaching to “real-world” environments. But our review has also acknowledged the internal
struggles that have increased in the last decade, where the inconclusiveness between a
narrow start-up view and a broad enterprising view has created an academic discussion that
goes to the roots of the subject and questions what the starting point should be when
engaging in teaching and learning the subject. In relation to Aldrich’s (1999) evolutionary
model, the core idea of experiential learning theory as an underlying framework for
developing knowledge on teaching and learning (e.g. Neck and Corbett, 2018) can be seen as
something that has been selected and retained throughout this time period.
From our discussion in the paper, it might be time for the field to introduce two distinct
subfields of entrepreneurial education, where the narrow start-up view could serve to focus
on developing our scholarly knowledge of how to learn about, for, and in entrepreneurship
with its different forms (e.g. commercial, social, sustainable, green and technological). That
would create boundary conditions for the development of more nuanced learning outcomes
and assessment measures, currently a key issue in the research discussion (Gedeon and
Valliere, 2018; Nabi et al., 2017) to measure impact (Rauch and Hulsink, 2015). A second
subfield would materialize naturally in the broader view of understanding enterprising
behaviour, where learning through is not specifically tied to the subject domain of
entrepreneurship, but instead seen as a pedagogical approach that transcends different
subject domains in academia (e.g. Hoppe et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2014). This might create
more clarity for both views and reduce the inconclusiveness that has increased as a result of
grouping entrepreneurship and enterprising together.
Finally, although evolution might be seen as a progression from previous periods, we
should not forget that evolution does not automatically imply progress (Aldrich and
Ruef, 2006, p. 17). We have witnessed a massive interest and increased variation in
entrepreneurial education over time, but also a higher level of inconclusiveness that has
created a crossroads of how to further develop the field. We cannot see into the future to
ascertain how this will materialize, hence, it is only by looking backwards that we can depict
what has been done so far, to better understand where the scholarly discourse on pedagogy
in entrepreneurial education research is currently situated.

Notes
1. Since entrepreneurial is a synthesized word including both entrepreneurship and enterprise, it is
here addressed as inconclusive, although it has been defined (cf. Ball, 1989; Erkkilä, 2000; Jones
and Iredale, 2010).
IJEBR 2. For example, three of the main journals in entrepreneurship ( JBV, ERD and ISBJ) were started
during the 1980s, and also the Babson conference (1981) and the RENT conference (1987) started
during this decade. Adding to this, the OECD report by Ball (1989) on how to foster an enterprising
culture marks the 1980s as the main foundation for the development of the field.
3. Mwasalwiba (2010, p. 29) argues that the typical content of entrepreneurship education includes
some or all of the following topics: idea generation/opportunity discovery, business plan writing,
new venture creation, risk and rationality, marketing, organization and team building, managing
growth, financing and marshalling of resources and SME management.

References
Aldrich, H.E. (1999), Organizations Evolving, Sage Publications, London.
Aldrich, H.E. and Martinez, M.A. (2001), “Many are called, but few are chosen: an evolutionary
perspective for the study of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 41-56.
Aldrich, H.E. and Ruef, M. (2006), Organizations Evolving, Sage, London.
Arpiainen, R.-L. and Kurczewska, A. (2017), “Learning risk-taking and coping with uncertainty
through experiential, team-based entrepreneurship education”, Industry & Higher Education,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 143-155.
Bae, T.J., Qian, S., Miao, C. and Fiet, J.O. (2014), “The relationship between entrepreneurship education
and entrepreneurial intentions: a meta-analytic review”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 217-254.
Ball, C. (1989), Towards An “Enterprising” Culture: A Challenge for Education and Training, OECD/
CERI, Paris.
Baptista, R. and Naia, A. (2015), “Entrepreneurship education: a selective examination of the literature”,
Foundations and Trends (R) in Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 337-426.
Barrows, H.S. and Tramblyn, R.M. (1980), Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education,
Springer Publishing Company, New York, NY.
Béchard, J.-P. and Grégoire, D. (2005), “Entrepreneurship education research revisited: the case of
higher education”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 22-43.
Béchard, J.-P. and Toulouse, J.-M. (1991), “Entrepreneurship and education: viewpoint from education”,
Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Bechard, J.-P. and Toulouse, J.-M. (1998), “Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of training
objectives in entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 317-332.
Bennett, R. (2006), “Business lecturers’ perceptions of the nature of entrepreneurship”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 165-188.
Biesta, G. (2004), “Against learning”, Nordisk pedagogik, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 70-82.
Biesta, G. (2009), “Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question
of purpose in education”, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability ( formerly:
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Birch, D.L. (1979), The Job Generation Process, MIT Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change,
Cambridge, MA.
Bridge, S. (2017), “Is ‘entrepreneurship’ the problem in entrepreneurship education?”,
Education þ Training, Vol. 59 Nos 7/8, pp. 740-750.
Brown, K.L. (2003), “From teacher-centered to learner-centered curriculum: Improving learning in
diverse classrooms”, Education, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 49-54.
Brown, R. (1990), “Encouraging enterprise: Britain’s graduate enterprise program”, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 71-77.
Brush, C.G., Duhaime, I.M., Gartner, W.B., Stewart, A., Katz, J.A., Hitt, M.A., Alvarez, S.A., Meyer, G.D. Evolution of
and Venkataraman, S. (2003), “Doctoral education in the field of entrepreneurship”, Journal of pedagogy
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 309-331.
Chen, M.-H. and Agrawal, S. (2018), “Exploring student’s team behavior through entrepreneurship
education: a time-lagged study”, Education + Training, Vol. 60 Nos 7/8, pp. 781-799.
Coduras Martínez, A., Levie, J., Kelley, D.J., Sæmundsson, R.J. and Schøtt, T. (2010), “Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor special report: a global perspective on entrepreneurship education
and Training”, Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA), London.
Cope, J. and Watts, G. (2000), “Learning by doing – an exploration of experience, critical incidents and
reflection in entrepreneurial learning”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 104-124.
Corbett, A.C. (2005), “Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and
exploitation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 473-491.
Costa, E., Soares, A.L. and de Sousa, J.P. (2016), “Information, knowledge and collaboration
management in the internationalisation of SMEs: a systematic literature review”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 557-569.
Curran, J. and Stanworth, J. (1989), “Education and training for enterprise: problems of classification,
evaluation, policy and research”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 11-22.
Daniel, A.D. (2016), “Fostering an entrepreneurial mindset by using a design thinking approach in
entrepreneurship education”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 215-223.
Deacon, J. and Harris, J. (2011), “A longitudinal reflection of blended/reflexive enterprise and
entrepreneurial education”, Reflective Practice, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 599-613.
de Villiers Scheepers, M.J., Barnes, R., Clements, M. and Stubbs, A.J. (2018), “Preparing future-ready
graduates through experiential entrepreneurship”, Education + Training, Vol. 60 No. 4,
pp. 303-317.
Dewey, J. (1946), Experience and Education, The Macmillan Company, New York, NY.
Dhliwayo, S. (2008), “Experiential learning in entrepreneurship education: a prospective model for
South African tertiary institutions”, Education+ Training, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 329-340.
Donnellon, A., Ollila, S. and Middleton, K.W. (2014), “Constructing entrepreneurial identity in
entrepreneurship education”, The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 490-499.
Duval-Couetil, N. (2013), “Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programs: challenges
and approaches”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 394-409.
Eckhardt, J.T. and Ciuchta, M.P. (2008), “Selected variation: the population-level implications of
multistage selection in entrepreneurship”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 209-224.
Erkkilä, K. (2000), Entrepreneurial Education: Mapping the Debates in the United States, the United
Kingdom and Finland, Garland Publishing, Taylor & Francis Group, London.
European Commission (2013), “Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan – reigniting the entrepreneurial
spirit in Europe”, Enterprise Publications, European Commission, Brussels.
Fayolle, A. (2008), “Entrepreneurship education at a crossroads: towards a more mature teaching field”,
Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 325-337.
Fayolle, A. (2013), “Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education”, Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, Vol. 25 Nos 7-8, pp. 692-701.
Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2008), “From craft to science: teaching models and learning processes in
entrepreneurship education”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 569-593.
Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2015), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial
attitudes and intention: hysteresis and persistence”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
IJEBR Fayolle, A., Verzat, C. and Wapshott, R. (2016), “In quest of legitimacy: the theoretical and
methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research”, International Small
Business Journal, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 895-904.
Fiet, J.O. (2001a), “The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 101-117.
Fiet, J.O. (2001b), “The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Finkle, T.A. and Deeds, D. (2001), “Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty, 1989–1998”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 613-630.
Foliard, S., Pontois, S.L., Fayolle, A. and Diermann, I. (2019), “The legitimacy of teachers in
entrepreneurship education: what we can learn from a literature review”, in Higgins, D., Jones, P.
and McGowan, P. (Eds), Creating Entrepreneurial Space: Talking Through Multi-Voices,
Reflections on Emerging Debates, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp. 7-23.
Fox, J., Pittaway, L. and Uzuegbunam, I. (2018), “Simulations in entrepreneurship education: serious
games and learning through play”, Entrepreneurship Education & Pedagogy, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 61-89.
Garavan, T.N. and O’Cinneide, B. (1994a), “Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a
review and evaluation – part 1”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 3-12.
Garavan, T.N. and O’Cinneide, B. (1994b), “Entrepreneurship education and training programmes:
a review and evaluation – part 2”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18 No. 11,
pp. 13-21.
Gartner, W. (1990), “What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 5, pp. 15-28.
Gartner, W.B. and Vesper, K.H. (1994), “Experiments in entrepreneurship education: successes and
failures”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 179-187.
Gedeon, S.A. and Valliere, D. (2018), “Closing the loop: measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy to assess
student learning outcomes”, Entrepreneurship Education & Pedagogy, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 272-303.
Gibb, A.A. (1987), “Enterprise culture – its meaning and implications for education and training”,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 2-38.
Gibb, A.A. (1993), “Enterprise culture and education understanding enterprise education and its links
with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals”, International Small
Business Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 11-34.
Gibb, A.A. (1997), “Small firms’ training and competitiveness: building upon the small business as a
learning organisation”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 13-29.
Gibb, A.A. (2002a), “Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship: living with,
dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity”, Industry and Higher
Education, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 135-148.
Gibb, A.A. (2002b), “In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ paradigm for learning:
creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of
knowledge”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 233-269.
Gielnik, M.M., Frese, M., Kahara-Kawuki, A., Katono, I.W., Kyejjusa, S., Ngoma, M., Munene, J.,
Namatovu-Dawa, R., Nansubuga, F. and Orobia, L. (2015), “Action and action-regulation in
entrepreneurship: evaluating a student training for promoting entrepreneurship”, Academy of
Management Learning & Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-94.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013), “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research:
notes on the Gioia methodology”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-31.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), “Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship
education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year
literature review”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 56-77.
Gough, D., Thomas, J. and Oliver, S. (2012), “Clarifying differences between review designs and Evolution of
methods”, Systematic Reviews, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-9. pedagogy
Greene, P.G., Katz, J.A. and Johannisson, B. (2004), “From the guest co-editors – entrepreneurship
education”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 238-241.
Gundry, L.K. and Kickul, J.R. (1996), “Flights of imagination: fostering creativity through experiential
learning”, Simulation & Gaming, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 334-349.
Haase, H. and Lautenschläger, A. (2011), “The ‘teachability dilemma’ of entrepreneurship”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 145-162.
Hägg, G. and Kurczewska, A. (2016), “Connecting the dots – a discussion on key concepts in
contemporary entrepreneurship education”, Education+ Training, Vol. 58 Nos 7/8, pp. 700-714.
Hägg, G. and Kurczewska, A. (2018), “Who is the student entrepreneur? Understanding the emergent
adult through the pedagogy and andragogy interplay”, Journal of Small Business Management,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12496
Hägg, G. and Schölin, T. (2018), “The policy influence on the development of entrepreneurship in higher
education: a Swedish perspective”, Education+ Training, Vol. 60 Nos 7/8, pp. 656-673.
Harms, R. (2015), “Self-regulated learning, team learning and project performance in entrepreneurship
education: learning in a lean startup environment”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 100, pp. 21-28.
Heinonen, J. and Poikkijoki, S.-A. (2006), “An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship
education: mission impossible?”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 80-94.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005a), “Entrepreneurship education and training: can
entrepreneurship be taught? Part I”, Education + Training, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 98-111.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005b), “Entrepreneurship education and training: can
entrepreneurship be taught? Part II”, Education + Training, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 158-169.
Higgins, D., Smith, K. and Mirza, M. (2013), “Entrepreneurial education: reflexive approaches to
entrepreneurial learning in practice”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 135-160.
Hills, G.E. (1988), “Variations in university entrepreneurship education: an empirical study of an
evolving field”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 109-122.
Hindle, K. (2007), “Teaching entrepreneurship at university: from the wrong building to the right
philosophy”, in Fayolle, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 104-126.
Hjorth, D. (2011), “On provocation, education and entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 23 Nos 1-2, pp. 49-63.
Honig, B. (2004), “Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of contingency-based business
planning”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 258-273.
Hoppe, M., Westerberg, M. and Leffler, E. (2017), “Educational approaches to entrepreneurship in
higher education – a view from the Swedish horizon”, Education + Training, Vol. 59 Nos 7/8,
pp. 751-767.
Howorth, C., Smith, S.M. and Parkinson, C. (2012), “Social learning and social entrepreneurship
education”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 371-389.
Jack, S.L. and Anderson, A.R. (1999), “Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture:
producing reflective practitioners”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 110-125.
Jamieson, I. (1984), “Schools and enterprise”, in Watts, A.G. and Moran, P. (Eds), Education for
Enterprise, CRAC, Ballinger, Cambridge, pp. 19-27.
Johannisson, B. (1991), “University training for entrepreneurship: Swedish approaches”,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 67-82.
Jones, B. and Iredale, N. (2010), “Enterprise education as pedagogy”, Education + Training, Vol. 52
No. 1, pp. 7-19.
IJEBR Jones, C. (2006), “Constructive alignment: a journey for new eyes”, Journal of Enterprising Culture,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 291-306.
Jones, C. (2009), “Enterprise education: learning through personal experience”, Industry and Higher
Education, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 175-182.
Jones, C. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education: revisiting our role and its purpose”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 500-513.
Jones, C. and Matlay, H. (2011), “Understanding the heterogeneity of entrepreneurship education: going
beyond Gartner”, Education + Training, Vol. 53 Nos 8/9, pp. 692-703.
Jones, C. and Penaluna, A. (2013), “Moving beyond the business plan in enterprise education”,
Education + Training, Vol. 55 Nos 8/9, pp. 804-814.
Jones, C., Matlay, H., Penaluna, K. and Penaluna, A. (2014), “Claiming the future of enterprise
education”, Education + Training, Vol. 56 Nos 8/9, pp. 764-775.
Jones, C., Penaluna, K., Penaluna, A. and Matlay, H. (2018), “The changing nature of enterprise:
addressing the challenge of Vesper and Gartner”, Industry & Higher Education, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 430-437.
Jones, P., Pickernell, D., Fisher, R. and Netana, C. (2017), “A tale of two universities: graduates perceived
value of entrepreneurship education”, Education + Training, Vol. 59 Nos 7/8, pp. 689-705.
Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Liguori, E. and Winkel, D.E. (2015), “Entrepreneurship education: a
need for reflection, real-world experience and action”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 690-708.
Katz, J.A. (1991), “Endowed positions: entrepreneurship and related fields”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 53-67.
Katz, J.A. (1999), “Institutionalizing elegance: when simulation becomes a requirement”, Simulation &
Gaming, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 332-336.
Katz, J.A. (2003), “The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education:
1876–1999”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 283-300.
Katz, J.A. (2008), “Fully mature but not fully legitimate: a different perspective on the state of
entrepreneurship education*”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 550-566.
Keat, R. and Abercrombie, N. (2011), Enterprise Culture, Routledge, London.
Kirchhoff, B.A. and Greene, P.G. (1998), “Understanding the theoretical and empirical content of
critiques of US job creation research”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 153-169.
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R.E. (2006), “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and
inquiry-based teaching”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 75-86.
Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O.P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J. and Linkman, S. (2009), “Systematic
literature reviews in software engineering – a systematic literature review”, Information and
Software Technology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 7-15.
Klandt, H. (2004), “Entrepreneurship education and research in German-speaking Europe”, Academy of
Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 293-301.
Klandt, H. and Volkmann, C. (2006), “Development and prospects of academic entrepreneurship
education in Germany”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 195-208.
Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kuratko, D.F. (2005), “The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and
challenges”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 577-598.
Kuratko, D.F. and Morris, M.H. (2018), “Corporate entrepreneurship: a critical challenge for educators
and researchers”, Entrepreneurship Education & Pedagogy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 42-60.
Kyrö, P. (2015), “The conceptual contribution of education to research on entrepreneurship education”,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 27 Nos 9/10, pp. 599-618.
Laalo, H. and Heinonen, J. (2016), “Governing the entrepreneurial mindset: business students’ Evolution of
constructions of entrepreneurial subjectivity”, European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 15 pedagogy
No. 6, pp. 696-713.
Lackéus, M. (2017), “Does entrepreneurial education trigger more or less neoliberalism in education?”,
Education+ Training, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 635-650.
Lackéus, M. and Williams Middleton, K. (2015), “Venture creation programs: bridging entrepreneurship
education and technology transfer”, Education+ Training, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 48-73.
Lackéus, M., Lundqvist, M. and Middleton, K.W. (2016), “Bridging the traditional-progressive
education rift through entrepreneurship”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 777-803.
Lahn, L.C. and Erikson, T. (2016), “Entrepreneurship education by design”, Education+ Training,
Vol. 58 Nos 7/8, pp. 684-699.
Landström, H. (2010), Pioneers in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research, Springer, Boston, MA.
Landström, H., Frank, H. and Veciana, J.M. (1997), Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research in
Europe: an ECSB Survey, Avebury, Aldershot.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lima, E., Lopes, R.M., Nassif, V. and Silva, D. (2015), “Opportunities to improve entrepreneurship
education: contributions considering Brazilian challenges”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 1033-1051.
Liñán, F. and Fayolle, A. (2015), “A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation,
thematic analyses, and research agenda”, International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 907-933.
Lindberg, E., Bohman, H. and Hultén, P. (2017), “Methods to enhance students’ entrepreneurial mindset:
a Swedish example”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 450-466.
Löbler, H. (2006), “Learning entrepreneurship from a constructivist perspective”, Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 19-38.
Lourenço, F., Sappleton, N. and Cheng, R. (2015), “Gender and business ethics of enterprise students and
nascent entrepreneurs engaged in entrepreneurship education”, Journal of Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 186-203.
Lyons, R., Lynn, T. and Mac an Bhaird, C. (2015), “Individual level assessment in entrepreneurship
education: an investigation of theories and techniques”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 136-156.
McCombs, B.L. (1997), “Self-assessment and reflection: tools for promoting teacher changes toward
learner-centered practices”, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 81 No. 587, pp. 1-14.
McMullan, W. and Long, W.A. (1987), “Entrepreneurship education in the nineties”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 261-275.
Macht, S.A. and Ball, S. (2016), “ ‘Authentic alignment’ – a new framework of entrepreneurship
education”, Education+ Training, Vol. 58 No. 9, pp. 926-944.
Mandel, R. and Noyes, E. (2016), “Survey of experiential entrepreneurship education offerings
among top undergraduate entrepreneurship programs”, Education + Training, Vol. 58 No. 2,
pp. 164-178.
Martin, B.C., McNally, J.J. and Kay, M.J. (2013), “Examining the formation of human capital in
entrepreneurship: a meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 211-224.
Matlay, H. (2008), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes”, Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 382-396.
Matricano, D. (2017), “Can policymakers improve the effectiveness of entrepreneurship training
programmes? Evidence from Italy”, Industry & Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 51-61.
IJEBR Moberg, K. (2014), “Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education: from ABC to PhD,
Copenhagen”, PhD, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.
Morris, M.H. and Liguori, E. (2016), Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy – 2016,
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Moshman, D. (1982), “Exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical constructivism”, Developmental Review,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 371-384.
Mueller, S. and Anderson, A.R. (2014), “Understanding the entrepreneurial learning process and its
impact on students’ personal development: a European perspective”, The International Journal
of Management Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 500-511.
Murphy, P. (2008), “Defining pedagogy”, in Hall, K., Murphy, P. and Soler, J. (Eds), Pedagogy and
Practice: Culture and Identities, Sage/The Open University, London, pp. 28-39.
Mwasalwiba, E.S. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching methods,
and impact indicators”, Education + Training, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 20-47.
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N. and Walmsley, A. (2017), “The impact of entrepreneurship
education in higher education: a systematic review and research agenda”, Academy of
Management Learning & Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 277-299.
Naia, A., Baptista, R., Januário, C. and Trigo, V. (2014), “A systematization of the literature on
entrepreneurship education: challenges and emerging solutions in the entrepreneurial
classroom”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 79-96.
Naia, A., Baptista, R., Januário, C. and Trigo, V. (2015), “Entrepreneurship education literature in the
2000s”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 111-135.
Neck, H.M. and Corbett, A.C. (2018), “The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship”,
Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 8-41.
Neck, H.M. and Greene, P.G. (2011), “Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Örtenblad, A. (2010), “Odd couples or perfect matches? On the development of management knowledge
packaged in the form of labels”, Management Learning, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 443-452.
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010), Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game
Changers, and Challengers, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Penaluna, K., Penaluna, A. and Jones, C. (2012), “The context of enterprise education: insights into
current practices”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 163-175.
Peterman, N.E. and Kennedy, J. (2003), “Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of
entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129-144.
Piaget, J. (2000), The Construction of Reality in the Child, Routledge, Abingdon.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007a), “Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 479-510.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007b), “Simulating entrepreneurial learning integrating experiential and
collaborative approaches to learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 211-233.
Pittaway, L. and Edwards, C. (2012), “Assessment: examining practice in entrepreneurship education”,
Education + Training, Vol. 54 Nos 8/9, pp. 778-800.
Pittaway, L., Hannon, P., Gibb, A.A. and Thompson, J. (2009), “Assessment practice in enterprise
education”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 71-93.
Plaschka, G. and Welsch, H. (1990), “Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education: curricular
designs and strategies”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 55-71.
Politis, D. (2005), “The process of entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 399-424.
Politis, D. and Gabrielsson, J. (2009), “Entrepreneurs’ attitudes towards failure: an experiential
learning approach”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 364-383.
Rae, D. (2009), “Connecting entrepreneurial and action learning in student-initiated new business Evolution of
ventures: the case of SPEED”, Action Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 289-303. pedagogy
Rae, D. (2010), “Universities and enterprise education: responding to the challenges of the new era”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 591-606.
Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2001), “Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial learning”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 150-158.
Rasmussen, E.A. and Sørheim, R. (2006), “Action-based entrepreneurship education”, Technovation,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 185-194.
Rauch, A. and Hulsink, W. (2015), “Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies:
an investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior”,
Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 187-204.
Rennemo, Ø. (2015), “Entrepreneurial trainers – the competence mix in action-oriented
entrepreneurship development programs”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 135-150.
Revans, R.W. (1982), “What is action learning?”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 64-75.
Rideout, E.C. and 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, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 329-351.
Roberts, J.W. (2015), Experiential Education in the College Context: What it is, How it Works, and Why it
Matters, Routledge, New York, NY.
Robinson, S., Neergaard, H., Tanggaard, L. and Krueger, N. (2016), “New horizons in entrepreneurship:
from teacher-led to student-centered learning”, Education + Training, Vol. 58 Nos 7/8,
pp. 661-683.
Ronstadt, R. (1985), “The educated entrepreneurs: a new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning”,
American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Sánchez, J.C. (2011), “University training for entrepreneurial competencies: its impact on intention of
venture creation”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 239-254.
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001), “Causation and Effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic
inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 243-263.
Sarasvathy, S.D. and Venkataraman, S. (2011), “Entrepreneurship as method: open questions for an
entrepreneurial future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 113-135.
Scott, J.M., Penaluna, A. and Thompson, J.L. (2016), “A critical perspective on learning outcomes and
the effectiveness of experiential approaches in entrepreneurship education: do we innovate or
implement?”, Education + Training, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 82-93.
Seikkula-Leino, J., Ruskovaara, E., Ikavalko, M., Mattila, J. and Rytkola, T. (2010), “Promoting
entrepreneurship education: the role of the teacher?”, Education + Training, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 117-127.
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman, N.B. (1984), “Entrepreneurship education: suggestions for increasing
effectiveness”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 18-25.
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman-Upton, N. (1987), “Evaluation of an innovative approach to teaching
entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 35-43.
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman-Upton, N. (1988), “Validation of an innovative teaching approach for
entrepreneurship courses”, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 11-18.
Sherman, P.S., Sebora, T. and Digman, L.A. (2008), “Experiential entrepreneurship in the classroom:
effects of teaching methods on entrepreneurial career choice intentions”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
IJEBR Sirelkhatim, F. and Gangi, Y. (2015), “Entrepreneurship education: a systematic literature review
of curricula contents and teaching methods”, Cogent Business & Management, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 1-11.
Solomon, G.T. (2007), “An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States”, Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 168-182.
Solomon, G.T. and Fernald, L.W. (1991), “Trends in small business management and entrepreneurship
education in the United States”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 25-39.
Solomon, G.T., Weaver, K.M. and Fernald, L.W. (1994), “A historical examination of small business
management and entrepreneurship pedagogy”, Simulation & Gaming, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 338-352.
Sweller, J. (1988), “Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning”, Cognitive Science,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 257-285.
Sweller, J. (2016), “Working memory, long-term memory, and instructional design”, Journal of Applied
Research in Memory and Cognition, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 360-367.
Taatila, V.P. (2010), “Learning entrepreneurship in higher education”, Education+ Training, Vol. 52
No. 1, pp. 48-61.
Tait, E. (1990), “Owner-managers’ perceived management education needs: an integrative framework”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 33-48.
Thorndike, E.L. (1921), The Teacher’s Word Book, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Thrane, C., Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S. and Neergaard, H. (2016), “The promise of entrepreneurship
education: reconceptualizing the individual-opportunity nexus as a conceptual framework for
entrepreneurship education”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 905-924.
Toding, M. and Venesaar, U. (2018), “Discovering and developing conceptual understanding of
teaching and learning in entrepreneurship lecturers”, Education + Training, Vol. 60 Nos 7/8,
pp. 696-718.
Toledano, N. and Karanda, C. (2017), “Morality, religious writings, and entrepreneurship education: an
integrative proposal using the example of Christian narratives”, Journal of Moral Education,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 195-211.
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 & Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 264-271.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal
of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Vorley, T. and Williams, N. (2016), “Not just dialling it in: examining cognitive-based approaches in
enterprise education using a smartphone application”, Education + Training, Vol. 58 No. 1,
pp. 45-60.
Walter, S.G. and Block, J.H. (2016), “Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: an institutional
perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 216-233.
Warhuus, J.P., Blenker, P. and Elmholdt, S.T. (2018), “Feedback and assessment in higher-education,
practice-based entrepreneurship courses: how can we build legitimacy?”, Industry & Higher
Education, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 23-32.
Warhuus, J.P., Tanggaard, L., Robinson, S. and Ernø, S.M. (2017), “From I to we: collaboration in
entrepreneurship education and learning?”, Education + Training, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 234-249.
Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002), “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature
review”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 18-23.
Weinrauch, J.D. (1984), “Educating the entrepreneur: understanding adult learning behavior”, Journal
of Small Business Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 32-37.
Williams Middleton, K. and Donnellon, A. (2014), “Personalizing entrepreneurial learning: a pedagogy
for facilitating the know why”, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 167-204.
Winkler, C., Saltzman, E. and Yang, S. (2018), “Improvement of practice in entrepreneurship education Evolution of
through action research: the case of coworking at a nonresidential college”, Entrepreneurship pedagogy
Education & Pedagogy, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 139-165.
Wolfe, J. and Bruton, G. (1994), “On the use of computerized simulations for entrepreneurship
education”, Simulation & Gaming, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 402-415.
Wyness, L., Jones, P. and Klapper, R. (2015), “Sustainability: what the entrepreneurship educators
think”, Education + Training, Vol. 57 Nos 8/9, pp. 834-852.
Young, J.E. and Sexton, D.L. (1997), “Entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework”, Journal of
Enterprising Culture, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 223-248.
Zeithaml, C.P. and Rice, G.H. (1987), “Entrepreneurship/small business education in American
universities”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 44-50.
IJEBR Appendix 1

Journal No. of articles

Academy of Management Learning and Education 10

Action Learning: Research and Practice 1
Active learning in higher education 1
Advances in Engineering Education 5
Advances in Management 1
American Journal of Small Businessa 3
British Journal of Educational Studies 1
British Journal of Management 2
Business Communication Quarterly 1
Business Forum 1
Chinese Education & Society 2
Cogent Business & Management 1
Convergence 2
Decision 1
Economic Development Review 1
Education + Training 103
Educational Review 1
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 7
Entrepreneurship Education & Pedagogy 7
Entrepreneurship Research Journal 1
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 9
European Economic Review 1
European Educational Research Journal 1
European Journal of Education 1
European Journal of Engineering Education 4
European Journal of Training and Development 2
Higher Education in Europe 1
Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning 1
Industrial and Commercial Training 1
Industry & Higher Education 33
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 2
Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education 1
International Entrepreneurship & Management Journal 8
International Journal of Business and Globalization 1
International Journal of Business and Management 1
International Journal of Educational Management 2
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 6
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 1
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 1
International Journal of Management Education 8
International Journal of Management Reviews 1
International Journal on Media Management 1
International Review of Public Nonprofit Marketing 1
International Small Business Journal 9
Irish Business and Administrative Research 1
Journal of Applied Business Research 1
Journal of Business Management 1
Journal of Business Venturing 15
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1
Journal of Education for Business 3
Table AI.
All journals
in the sample (continued )
Journal No. of articles
Evolution of
pedagogy
Journal of Enterprising Culture 3
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 22
Journal of European Industrial Training 11
Journal of General Management 1
Journal of Legal Studies Education 1
Journal of Management Development 2
Journal of Marketing Education 1
Journal of Moral Education 1
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 8
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 14
Journal of Small Business Management 21
Journal of Teaching in International Business 2
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation 1
Journal of the Knowledge Economy 1
Journal of Vocational Education & Training 1
Management Decision 1
Management Learning 3
Management Teaching Review 1
New Directions for Community Colleges 1
R&D Management 1
Reflective practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 1
Simulation & Gaming 13
Studies in Higher Education 2
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 2
Technology Innovation Management Review 1
Technovation 5
Tertiary Education and Management 1
Total number of articles 395
Total number of journals 78
Note: aCurrently known as Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice Table AI.
IJEBR Appendix 2

Author Year Author Year Author Year

Armstrong 2017 Henry 2015 Milian and Gurrisi 2017

Arpiainen and Kurczewska 2017 Henry and Lewis 2018 Mitchell and Chesteen 1995
Attali and Yemini 2017
Bae, Qian, Miao and Fiet 2014 Henry, Hill and Leitch 2005 Mitra 2002
Bager 2011 Henry, Hill and Leitch 2005 Mitra 2017
Baggen, Kampen, Naia, 2018 Heriot and Simpson 2007 Mitra, Abubakar and 2011
Biemans, Lans and Mulder Sagagi
Balan, Maritz and McKinlay 2018 Higgins and Elliott 2011 Mohamad et al. 2015
Barbosa, Kickul and Smith 2008 Higgins and Galloway 2014 Morselli 2018
Bechard and Gregoire 2005 Hill and Kuhns 1994 Mueller and Anderson 2014
Bechard and Toulouse 1991 Hills 1988 Mwasalwiba 2010
Bechard and Toulouse 1998 Hindle 2002 Nabi and Linan 2011
Bell and Bell 2016 Hjorth 2011 Nabi, Linan, Krueger, 2017
Fayolle and Walmsley
Bell, Dearman and 2015 Honig 2004 Nabi, Walmsley, Linan, 2018
Wilbanks Akhtar and Neame
Bender, Meli, Turnbull, 1990 Hood and Young 1993 Naia et al. 2015
Payne and Russell
Benson 1992 Hoppe, Westerberg and 2017 Nakagawa, Takata, Kato, 2017
Leffler Matsuyuki and Matsuhashi
Bernstein and Carayannis 2012 Howort et al. 2012 Neck and Corbett 2018
Besterfield-Sacre et al. 2016 Huq and Gilbert 2017 Neck and Greene 2011
Binks, Starkey and Mahon 2006 Hynes 1996 Neergaard and Christensen 2017
Birley, Moss and Saunders 1987 Hynes and Richardson 2007 Nehrt 1987
Blenker et al. 2011 Hynes, Costin and Birdthistle 2011 Neumeyer and McKenna 2016
Blenker et al. 2012 Hytti and Gorman 2004 Nielsen and Gartner 2017
Blenker et al. 2014 Hytti, Stenholm, Heinonen 2010 Nilsson 2012
and Seikkula-Leino
Bonnet et al. 2006 Hägg and Kurczewska 2016 Noyes and Linder 2015
Boyle 2007 Hägg and Kurczewska 2018 Okudan and Rzasa 2004
Breslin and Jones 2014 Hägg and Schölin 2018 Oosterbeek, van Praag and 2010
Ijsselstein
Bridge 2017 Ibrahim and Soufani 2002 Packham, Jones, Miller, 2010
Pickernell and Thomas
Bridge, Hegarty and Porter 2010 Ilonen and Heinonen 2018 Paco, Ferreira and Raposo 2016
Brockhaus 1991 Ismail, Sawang and Zolin 2018 Papayannakis et al. 2008
Brodie, Laing and Anderson 2009 Jack and Anderson 1999 Pardo 2013
Brown 1990 Jang 2013 Penaluna, Penaluna and 2012
Jones
Buller and Frinkle 2013 Johannisson 1991 Peterman and Kennedy 2003
Caird 1990 Johannisson 2016 Piperopoulos and Dimov 2015
Carayannis, Evans and 2003 Johannisson, Landström and 1998 Pittaway 2009
Hanson Rosenberg
Carey and Matlay 2010 Johnson, Craig and 2006 Pittaway and Cope 2007
Hildebrand
Carey and Matlay 2011 Jones 2006 Pittaway and Cope 2007
Carmen 1995 Jones 2006 Pittaway and Edwards 2012
Chang and Rieple 2013 Jones 2007 Pittaway, Hannon, Gibb and 2009
Thompson
Table AII. Chang, Hsiao, Chen and Yu 2018
All articles in the
sample (author names,
year of publication) (continued )
Author Year Author Year Author Year
Evolution of
pedagogy
Chell and Allman 2003 Jones 2007 Plaschka and Welsch 1990
Chen and Agrawal 2018 Jones 2009 Porter 1994
Chusimir 1988 Jones 2010 Potishuk and Kratzer 2017
Clark, Davis and Harnish 1984 Jones and English 2004 Pounder and Pounder 2018
Clarke and Reavley 1980 Jones and Iredale 2010 Preedy and Jones 2017
Clarke and Underwood 2011 Jones and Jones 2011 Pretorious, Nieman and van 2005
Vuuren
Co and Mitchell 2006 Jones and Matlay 2011 Rae 2003
Collins, Hannon and Smith 2004 Jones and Penaluna 2013 Rae 2007
Collins, Smith and Hannon 2006 Jones and Underwood 2017 Rae 2009
Cooper 2007 Jones et al. 2013 Rae 2010
Costin et al. 2013 Jones, Matlay and Maritz 2012 Rae and Woodier-Harris 2012
Crayford et al. 2012 Jones, Matlay, Penaluna and 2014 Rae, Martin, Antcliff and 2012
Penaluna Hannon
Curran and Stanworth 1989 Jones, Penaluna, Penaluna 2018 Ramsgaard and Christensen 2018
and Matlay
Dainow 1986 Jones, Pickernell, Fisher and 2017 Ramsgaard and Östergaard 2018
Netana
Dana 1992 Josien and Sybrowsky 2013 Rasmussen and Sørheim 2006
Daniel 2016 Kapasi and Grekova 2018 Rauch and Hulsink 2015
De Faoite, Henry, Johnston 2003 Karlsson and Moberg 2011 Ray 1990
and Van der Sijde
De Villiers Scheepers, 2018 Kassean, Vanevenhoven, 2015 Refai and Higgins 2017
Barnes, Clements and Liguori and Winkel
Stubbs
Deacon and Harris 2011 Kasturiratne, Lean and 2012 Rennemo 2015
Phippen
DeTienne and Chandler 2004 Katz 1995 Richardson and Hynes 2008
Dhliwayo 2008 Katz 1999 Ridder and Van der Sijde 2003
Donckels 1991 Katz 2003 Rideout and Gray 2013
Donnellon, Ollila and 2014 Rigg and O’Dwyer 2012
Williams Middleton
Draycott, Rae and Vause 2011 Kelmar 1992 Robertson and Collins 2003
Drost 2010 Keogh and Galloway 2004 Robinson 1996
Dutta, Li and Merenda 2011 Kirby and Ibrahim 2011 Robinson and Haynes 1991
Duval-Couetil 2013 Kirby and Mullen 1990 Robinson and Long 1992
Duval-Couetil, Shartrand 2016 Kirkwood, Dwyer and Gray 2014 Robinson and Shumar 2014
and Reed
Dzombak et al. 2016 Klandt and Volkmann 2006 Robinson, Neergaard, 2016
Tanggaard and Krueger
Edelman, Manolova and 2008 Klapper 2004 Rodrigues et al. 2010
Brush
Edwards and Muir 2005 Klapper 2014 Roebuck and Brawley 1996
Roman and Maxim 2017
Edwards and Muir 2012 Kolvereid and Moen 1997 Ronstadt 1985
Egerová, Eger and Micik 2017 Sanchez 2011
Elmuti et al. 2012 Kozlinska 2011 Sanchez 2013
Faherty 2015 Krakauer, Serra, Ribeiro de 2017 Scott, Penaluna and 2016
Almeida Thompson
Farquharson et al. 2013 Kubberöd and Pettersen 2017 Seikula-Leino et al. 2010
Fayolle 2008 Kubberöd and Pettersen 2018 Sexton and Bowman 1984
Fayolle 2013 Kubberöd, Fosstenløkken 2018 Sexton and 1987
and Erstad Bowman-Upton

(continued ) Table AII.

IJEBR Author Year Author Year Author Year

Fayolle and Gailly 2008 Kuckertz 2013 Sexton and 1988

Bowman-Upton
Fayolle and Gailly 2015 Kuratko 2005 Sexton, Upton, Wacholtz 1997
and McDougall
Fayolle, Gailly and Lassas- 2006 Kuratko and Morris 2018 Shepherd 2004
Clerc
Fayolle, Verzat and 2016 Kurczewska, Kyrö, Lagus, 2018 Sherman, Sebora and 2008
Wapshott Kohonen and Lindh-Knuutila Digman
Feldman 1995 Kyrö 2008 Sindik and Graybeal 2017
Fellnhofer 2017 Kyrö 2015 Singh 1990
Fenton and Barry 2011 Laalo and Heinonen 2016 Sirelkhatim and Gangi 2015
Fenton and Barry 2014 Lackéus 2014 Smith, Collins and Hannon 2006
Fernandes, Afonso, Fonte, 2017 Lackéus 2017 Solomon 2007
Alves and Ribeiro
Fiet 2001 Lackéus and Williams 2015 Solomon and Fernald 1991
Middleton
Fiet 2001 Lackéus, Lundqvist and 2016 Solomon, Weaver and 1994
Williams Middleton Fernald
Fleming 1994 Lahm and Rader 2015 Souitaris, Zerbinati and Al- 2007
Laham
Fletcher 1999 Lahn and Erikson 2016 Soundarajan et al. 2016
Fox, Pittaway and 2018 Lam 2010 Steward and Boyd 1988
Uzuegbunam
Fretschner and Weber 2013 Lanero et al. 2011 Støren 2014
Fulgence 2015 Laukkanen 2000 Taatila 2010
Galloway, Anderson, Brown 2005 Lautenschläger and Haase 2011 Tan and Ng 2006
and Wilson
Garavan and O´Cinneide 1994 Lee et al. 2005 Tasker and Packham 1994
Garavan and O´Cinneide 1994 Lee, Kreiser, Wrede and 2018 Thavikulwat 1995
Kogelen
Gartner and Vesper 1994 Leitch and Harrison 1999 Thom 2017
Gedeon 2014 Lima et al. 2015 Thrane, Blenker, Korsgaard 2016
and Neergaard
Gedeon and Valliere 2018 Linan, Ceresia and Bernal 2018 Toding and Venesaar 2018
Ghina, Simatupang and 2015 Linan, Rodriguez-Cohard and 2011 Toledano and Karanda 2017
Gustomo Rueda-Cantuche
Giacomin, Janssen, Pruett, 2011 Lindberg, Bohman and 2017 Troudt, Schulman and 2017
Shinnar, Llopis and Toney Hulten Winkler
Gibb 1987 Lindberg, Bohman, Hulten 2017 Tunstall and Lynch 2010
and Wilson
Gibb 1987 Ulijn et al. 2004
Gibb 1987 Lockett, Quesada-Pallares, 2017 Ustav and Venesaar 2018
Williams-Middleton,
Padilla-Melendez and Jack
Gibb 1993 Loi, Castriotta and Guardo 2016 Van Clouse 1990
Gibb 1994 Long and Ohtani 1988 Vanevenhoven 2013
Gibb 1996 Longva and Foss 2018 Vanevenhoven and Liguori 2013
Gibb 1999 Lourenco, Sappleton and 2015 Venkatachalam and Waqif 2005
Cheng
Gibb 2002 Lourenco, Taylor and Taylor 2013 Verzat, Byrne and Fayolle 2009
Gibb 2002 Low, Venkataraman and 1994 Vesper 1988
Srivatsan

Table AII. (continued )

Author Year Author Year Author Year
Evolution of
pedagogy
Gibson 1994 Lyons, Lynn and Bhaird 2015 Vesper and Gartner 1997
Gielnik et al. 2015 Löbler 2006 Vesper and McMullan 1988
Gillin 1991 Macht and Ball 2016 Vesper, McMullan and Ray 1989
Gimmon 2014 Mandel and Noyes 2016
Gordon and Bursuc 2018 Maresch, Harms, Kailer and 2016 von Graevenitz, Harhoff and 2010
Wimmer-Wurm Weber
Gorman, Hanlon and King 1997 Maritz 2017 Vorley and Williams 2016
Gstraunthaler and Hendry 2011 Maritz and Brown 2013 Walter and Block 2016
Gundry and Kickul 1996 Maritz and Brown 2013 Walter and Dohse 2012
Günzel-Jensen and 2017 Maritz and Donovan 2015 Warhuus , Blenker, and 2018
Robinson Elmholdt
Haase and Lautenschläger 2011 Martin, McNally and Kay 2013 Warhuus, Tanggaard, 2017
Robinson and Ernø
Haghighi, Mahmoudi and 2018 Mason and Arshed 2013 Watkins and Stone 1999
Bijani
Hannon 2006 Matlay 2005 Weiming, Chunyan and 2016
Xiaohua
Hansemark 1998 Matlay 2005 Weinrauch 1984
Harkema and Schout 2008 Matlay 2006 Westhead and Solesvik 2015
Harmeling 2011 Matricano 2017 Williams Middleton and 2014
Donnellon
Harms 2015 McKeown et al. 2006 Winkel, Vanevenhoven, 2013
Drago and Clements
Harte and Stewart 2012 McMullan 1988 Winkler, Saltzman and 2018
Yang
Hartshorn and Hannon 2005 McMullan and Boberg 1991 Wolfe and Bruton 1994
Hasan, Khan and Nabi 2017 McMullan and Gillin 1998 Wu and Martin 2018
Hatt 2018 McMullan and Long 1987 Wyckham 1989
Hegarty 2006 McMullan et al. 1988 Wyckham and Wedley 1990
Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006 McMullan, Long and Graham 1986 Wyness, Jones and Klapper 2015
Heinonen, Hytti and 2011 McMullan, Long and Wilson 1985 Xia, Shumin and Yifeng 2016
Stenholm
Heirot et al. 2008 Menzies and Tatroff 2006 Zeithaml and Rice 1987
Henry 2013 Mets, Kozlinska and Raudsaar 2017 Åsvoll and Jacobsen 2012 Table AII.

About the authors

Gustav Hägg is Postdoctoral Researcher at Lund University with a PhD Degree within the research
field of Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Learning focussed on how reflective thinking
could become more integrated in the learning process of students’ entrepreneurs. His current research
interests include theorizing learning in entrepreneurship education and the post-entrepreneurship
education career of graduates through alumni research. He has also a general interest for
entrepreneurial decision making and the role of ethics in relation to entrepreneurship. Gustav Hägg is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: gustav.hagg@fek.lu.se
Jonas Gabrielsson is Professor of Business Administration at the School of Business and
Engineering, Halmstad University. His current research interests include the commercialization and
diffusion of new technology, corporate governance in new and small firms, and entrepreneurship
among academics. He also has general interest in the creation and evolution of markets and industries.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com