Entrepreneurship education (E-Ed) is maturing—from debate about whether or not it can be done, to how it should be done (Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005); from business schools teaching start-ups through a business plan format, toward converging upon a broader attitudechanging framework (Mwasalwiba, 2010) centered around the learning of enterprise behavior. Despite these advances, the implicit “one-size-fits-all” assumption of a generic approach to E-Ed across disciplines remains. Yet, poor alignment between stakeholder goals (Matlay, 2011), program content and pedagogy, and success indicators (Mwasalwiba, 2010) are surfacing as major impeding issues as E-Ed establishes itself outside of the business school setting (Vesper & Gartner, 1997; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Gibb, 2005; Heinonen & Hytti, 2010). With the movement toward broadening target groups for E-Ed, the diversity of stakeholders is increasing, and the need for a tailored, discipline-specific approach to E-Ed is becoming rapidly apparent. As a first step toward differentiating E-Ed across disciplines, we propose the establishment of an E-Ed framework that can guide and align stakeholders, program designers, and educators in the construction of courses and curricula. At the core of this framework is a taxonomy for discipline-specific entrepreneurship education content and learning goals—different educations have varying inherent strengths and weakness vis-à-vis entrepreneurship, and thus have different pathways and barriers to develop entrepreneurial graduates (Blenker et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2006; Neck and Greene, 2011). The objective of this paper is to establish a taxonomy whereby the differences between university disciplines are identified and organized from an entrepreneurial perspective (Jones and Matlay, 2011; Jones et al., 2012), and to analyze and discuss specific impact that these differences, pathways, and barriers to entrepreneurship represent.
Main Research Area:
RENT XXVII - Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2013