It is also interesting that academics after spin-off establishment are on average statistically significant more involved in applied research and less in basic research than prior spin-off establishment. This result shows that it is common for academic entrepreneurs that are more interested in research which is more connected with industry and has direct applicable value. This is reasonable since these academics are also entrepreneurs at the same time and consecutively practically business oriented. This finding is consistent with authors that found a positive relationship between industry-funding and applied research (Gulbrandsen & Smeby, 2005; Poyago-Theotoky et al., 2002; Rahm, 1994; Van Looy et al., 2004). Our results also reveal that academic entrepreneurs after they establish their spin-off companies employ more funds for applied research then before which coincides with more applied research conducted after the spin-off creation. In consequence, it also arises that academics also employ a minor percentage of research funds for their basic research after they become academic entrepreneurs. Based on these research results, we can argue, that those academics that establish their own companies do not stop research; they just shift their research interest

There seem to be almost no changes in patent and publication activities of academics after they become academic entrepreneurs. After the spin-off creation, academic entrepreneur on average publish the same amount of papers and receive on average the same number of

The Centre of Excellence for Biosensors, Instrumentation and Process Control is an operation financed by the European Union, European Regional Development Fund and

Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1992). Real effects of academic research:

Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.

Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. *Science, 211*(4489),

Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Causino, N., & Louis Seashore, K. (1996). Participation of

Brennan, M. C., & McGowan, P. (2007). The knowledge market place: understanding

life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. *New England Journal of*

interaction at the academic-industry interface. In J. Ulijn, D. Drillon & F. Lasch (Eds.), *Entrepreneurship, cooperation and the firm: the emergence and survival of high-*

Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology.

comment. *American Economic Review, 82*(1), 363-367.

*technology ventures in Europe* Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

*Journal of Marketing Research, 14*(3), 396-402.

*Medicine, 335*(23), 1734-1739.

Please address all correspondence to Dr. Alenka Slavec<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
industry will cooperate even more after their spin-off establishment.

from basic to more applied research.

**6. Acknowledgment**

**7. References**

1390-1396.

citation then prior becoming academic entrepreneurs.

The results presented in Table 2 shows that hypotheses related to patenting and publication of scientific papers were not supported. Based on research results we cannot argue that there are any changes in the way academics work after they establish their own company in terms of the number of applications for patents (H2a), number of granted patents (H2b), number of published scientific papers (H3a), and number of citations (H3b).

Last four hypotheses (H4a, H4b, H4c, and H4d) that were related to the type of research were supported. Hypothesis H4a which predicted that after spin-off creation academic entrepreneurs would be less involved in basic research than prior spin-off creation was supported (mean value of 2.54). Hypothesis H4b which proposed that after spin-off creation academic entrepreneurs would be more involved in applied research than prior spin-off creation was supported (mean value of 3.31). Hypotheses H4c and H4d which were related to percentage of research fund for basic research (H4c) and percentage of research funds from industry (H4d) were also supported. Mean value of 2.66 for the percentage of research funds for basic research was statistically significantly lower than the test value of 3.00. Mean value of 3.29 for the percentage of research funds from industry was statistically significantly higher than the test value of 3.00.

#### **5. Conclusion**

Although spin-off creation and knowledge transfer from academia to industry has been widely investigated, there are still little studies focused on the key actor – the academic entrepreneur. Therefore, this chapter has analysed how do academics change their way of work after they become academic entrepreneurs. With this study, we contribute to the literature by performing an analysis about changes in academia-industry cooperation relationship, patent activities, publications activities and research activities after academics establish their own companies.

The study reveals that academic entrepreneurs are on average statistically significant more active in cooperation with industry in terms of consulting to companies, time spent for projects ordered by the industry and involvement in industry-related projects than before they have established their spin-off company. The result is not surprising since academic entrepreneurs are by virtue of having established their spin-off companies more involved in business activities than traditional academics with no or little connections with industry. Academic entrepreneurs spend more time on business matters and are more in contact with industry. This avails them with avenues for conducting industry-related project more than their non-industry-related colleagues from universities since they have also practicalbusiness experiences, social ties, and relevant contacts. Thus, our findings suggest that academic entrepreneurs will be involved in consulting to companies more than prior spinoff establishment. The reason may be found in industry-and-business-related experience and entrance in real business with their spin-off companies which provides them reputation and experience. Since academic entrepreneurs are more involved in the real economy and have more contacts in the industry, they easily gain industry-related projects and are presumably also more interested in more applied project then academics that are not connected with the industry. Our results are consistent with scholars (Blumenthal et al., 1996; Gulbrandsen & Smeby, 2005; Landry et al., 2006; Mansfield, 1995) that argue that academics` cooperation with industry fosters spin-off creation and commercialization productivity of academics which suggests that academics who are more involved with industry will cooperate even more after their spin-off establishment.

It is also interesting that academics after spin-off establishment are on average statistically significant more involved in applied research and less in basic research than prior spin-off establishment. This result shows that it is common for academic entrepreneurs that are more interested in research which is more connected with industry and has direct applicable value. This is reasonable since these academics are also entrepreneurs at the same time and consecutively practically business oriented. This finding is consistent with authors that found a positive relationship between industry-funding and applied research (Gulbrandsen & Smeby, 2005; Poyago-Theotoky et al., 2002; Rahm, 1994; Van Looy et al., 2004). Our results also reveal that academic entrepreneurs after they establish their spin-off companies employ more funds for applied research then before which coincides with more applied research conducted after the spin-off creation. In consequence, it also arises that academics also employ a minor percentage of research funds for their basic research after they become academic entrepreneurs. Based on these research results, we can argue, that those academics that establish their own companies do not stop research; they just shift their research interest from basic to more applied research.

There seem to be almost no changes in patent and publication activities of academics after they become academic entrepreneurs. After the spin-off creation, academic entrepreneur on average publish the same amount of papers and receive on average the same number of citation then prior becoming academic entrepreneurs.

#### **6. Acknowledgment**

170 Entrepreneurship – Born, Made and Educated

The results presented in Table 2 shows that hypotheses related to patenting and publication of scientific papers were not supported. Based on research results we cannot argue that there are any changes in the way academics work after they establish their own company in terms of the number of applications for patents (H2a), number of granted patents (H2b),

Last four hypotheses (H4a, H4b, H4c, and H4d) that were related to the type of research were supported. Hypothesis H4a which predicted that after spin-off creation academic entrepreneurs would be less involved in basic research than prior spin-off creation was supported (mean value of 2.54). Hypothesis H4b which proposed that after spin-off creation academic entrepreneurs would be more involved in applied research than prior spin-off creation was supported (mean value of 3.31). Hypotheses H4c and H4d which were related to percentage of research fund for basic research (H4c) and percentage of research funds from industry (H4d) were also supported. Mean value of 2.66 for the percentage of research funds for basic research was statistically significantly lower than the test value of 3.00. Mean value of 3.29 for the percentage of research funds from industry was statistically

Although spin-off creation and knowledge transfer from academia to industry has been widely investigated, there are still little studies focused on the key actor – the academic entrepreneur. Therefore, this chapter has analysed how do academics change their way of work after they become academic entrepreneurs. With this study, we contribute to the literature by performing an analysis about changes in academia-industry cooperation relationship, patent activities, publications activities and research activities after academics

The study reveals that academic entrepreneurs are on average statistically significant more active in cooperation with industry in terms of consulting to companies, time spent for projects ordered by the industry and involvement in industry-related projects than before they have established their spin-off company. The result is not surprising since academic entrepreneurs are by virtue of having established their spin-off companies more involved in business activities than traditional academics with no or little connections with industry. Academic entrepreneurs spend more time on business matters and are more in contact with industry. This avails them with avenues for conducting industry-related project more than their non-industry-related colleagues from universities since they have also practicalbusiness experiences, social ties, and relevant contacts. Thus, our findings suggest that academic entrepreneurs will be involved in consulting to companies more than prior spinoff establishment. The reason may be found in industry-and-business-related experience and entrance in real business with their spin-off companies which provides them reputation and experience. Since academic entrepreneurs are more involved in the real economy and have more contacts in the industry, they easily gain industry-related projects and are presumably also more interested in more applied project then academics that are not connected with the industry. Our results are consistent with scholars (Blumenthal et al., 1996; Gulbrandsen & Smeby, 2005; Landry et al., 2006; Mansfield, 1995) that argue that academics` cooperation with industry fosters spin-off creation and commercialization

number of published scientific papers (H3a), and number of citations (H3b).

significantly higher than the test value of 3.00.

**5. Conclusion**

establish their own companies.

The Centre of Excellence for Biosensors, Instrumentation and Process Control is an operation financed by the European Union, European Regional Development Fund and Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology.

Please address all correspondence to Dr. Alenka Slavec<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### **7. References**

Academic Entrepreneurship: What Changes When Scientists Become Academic Entrepreneurs? 173

Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role

Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company?: An

Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more

Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. *Research Policy, 20*(1), 1-

Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics, and financing. *Review of Economics & Statistics, 77*(1), 55. Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: an update of empirical

Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science.

Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1998). *Fostering*

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002). The measurement of

Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of U.S.

Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation:

Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. *Research Policy, 37*(10), 1884-1891. Poyago-Theotoky, J., Beath, J., & Siegel, D. S. (2002). *Universities and Fundamental Research:*

Rahm, D. (1994). Academic perceptions of university-firm technology transfer. *Policy Studies*

Roberts, E. B. (1991). *Entrepreneurs in high technology : lessons from M.I.T. and beyond*. New

Shane, S. A. (2004). *Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation*.

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge

transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university-

Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. *Biometrika, 63*(3), 581-592.

Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publising.

*entrepreneurship*. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

scientific and technological activities : proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development: Frascati manual 2002. Organisation for

and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. *Management Science,*

Towards a research agenda. *International Journal of Management Reviews, 9*(4), 259-

*Reflections on the Growth of University-Industry Partnership*: Department of

Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). *The Academic Revolution*. New York: Doubleday.

activity. *Research Policy, 38*(6), 922-935.

findings. *Research Policy, 26*(7-8), 773-776.

*American Sociological Review, 22*(6), 635-659.

Economic Co-operation and Development.

Economics, University of St. Andrews.

*Journal, 22*(2), 267-278.

York: Oxford University Press.

creation. *Technovation, 22*(5), 281-289.

*Policy, 35*(10), 1599-1615.

956.

12.

*48*(1), 24-43.

280.

identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization

empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. *Research Policy, 38*(6), 947-

likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. *Research*

Brett, A. M., Gibson, D. V., & Smilor, R. W. (1991). *University spin-off companies : economic*

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. *Journal of Cross-Cultural*

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C.

Carayannis, E. G., Rogers, E. M., Kurihara, K., & Allbritton, M. M. (1998). High-technology

Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D. *Management Science, 48*(1), 1-23. Coombs, J. E., Mudambi, R., & Deeds, D. L. (2006). An examination of the investments in

Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. *Research Policy,*

Degroof, J.-J., & Roberts, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. *The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29*(3), 327-352. Denis, J.-L., & Lomas, J. (2003). Convergent evolution: the academic and policy roots of collaborative research. *Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8*, 1-6. Diamond, J. A. M. (1986). What is a citation worth? *Journal of Human Resources, 21*(2), 200-

Dillman, D. A. (2000). *Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method* (2nd edition ed.).

Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new

Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the

Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics' organizational characteristics and the

Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors'

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). *Multivariate data analysis*

Hambleton, R. K. (1993). Translating achievement tests for use in cross-national studies.

Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., et al. (1997).

Hills, G. E., & LaForge, R. W. (1992). Research at the marketing interface to advance entrepreneurship theory. *Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 16*(3), 33-59. Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. *American Economic Review, 79*(5), 957-

commercialization of university intellectual property. *Research Policy, 32*(4), 639-658.

generation of successful business ideas. *Journal of Business Venturing, 20*(6), 821-845.

Mapping the university technology transfer process. *Journal of Business Venturing,*

university-industry linkages. *Research Policy, 27*(8), 823-833.

research performance. *Research Policy, 34*(6), 932-950.

(5th edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

*European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9*(1), 57-68.

Littlefield Publishers.

*Psychology, 1*(3), 185-216.

*Technovation, 18*(1), 1-11.

*23*(5), 487-521.

*12*(6), 423-434.

970.

215.

444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

*Business Venturing, 21*(4), 405-428.

New York; Chichester: John Wiley.

*development, faculty entrepreneurs, and technology transfer*. Savage: Rowman &

Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), *Handbook of cross-cultural psychology* (Vol. 1, pp. 389-

spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities.

U.S. biotechnology firms by foreign and domestic corporate partners. *Journal of*

**10**

**University's Entrepreneurship Education:**

For the past three decades, the world experienced the impact of entrepreneurship in the creation of creative and innovative new ventures. Who would have thought that as the world becomes connected through the internet, as precisely predicted by Friedman (2005); products like Facebook revolutionise social networking to another level. Who would have thought that Facebook, which originated from a college room to cater connection amongst college's students, has become the most used social networking site in the world! Amongst other successful entrepreneurship ventures like Microsoft Corporation, Google Inc., Apple, Virgin Group and Wal-mart; Facebook is a fine example of how entrepreneurship can bring

Behind every successful business venture, there is an entrepreneur who visualises and transforms an unpolished idea into commercial success. Becoming an entrepreneur is never easy. It requires a unique blend of creativity, innovation, self-confidence, leadership, and multi-skills, all of which determines the success and failure of a new venture. There are many intertwining factors that determine an individual's plight to become an entrepreneur. These so-called antecedents can be both natural and circumstantial. Various research projects have been undertaken to establish and reaffirm the ideas of what makes an entrepreneur; i.e. whether they are born (natural-tendency), or made and educated to become one (circumstantial-tendency). In another interesting development, many business

In this chapter, the author's perspective of entrepreneurship education in universities is

schools took the initiative to offer entrepreneurship education to the public.

5. The relationship of graduate career-making and entrepreneurship education,

discussed in detail. The chapter is arranged according to sub-topics of:

7. Integrated Strategic Entrepreneurship Education Delivery (ISEED).

**1. Introduction**

positive impacts to the world.

1. The background of entrepreneurship, 2. Definitions of entrepreneurship, 3. Entrepreneurial trajectories,

4. The nature of entrepreneurial intention,

6. Entrepreneurship education issues, and

**Creating Meaningful Impression**

**for New Generation**

Muhammad Nizam Zainuddin

*Multimedia University*

*Malaysia*

industry collaboration. *The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14*(1), 111-133.

### **University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation**

Muhammad Nizam Zainuddin *Multimedia University Malaysia*

#### **1. Introduction**

174 Entrepreneurship – Born, Made and Educated

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the

Sljivic, N. (1993). University spin-off companies: management requirements and pitfalls to be avoided. *The International Journal of Educational Management, 7*(5), 32-34. Stankiewicz, R. (1994). Spin-off companies from universities. *Science and Public Policy, 21*(2),

Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining

Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities'

entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded

linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. *Research*

Stern, S. (2004). Do scientists pay to be scientists? *Management Science, 50*(6), 835-853.

and reciprocal Matthew-effect? *Research Policy, 33*(3), 425-441.

*of Engineering and Technology Management, 21*(1-2), 115-142.

111-133.

99-107.

*Policy, 37*(8), 1205-1223.

industry collaboration. *The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14*(1),

effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. *Journal*

> For the past three decades, the world experienced the impact of entrepreneurship in the creation of creative and innovative new ventures. Who would have thought that as the world becomes connected through the internet, as precisely predicted by Friedman (2005); products like Facebook revolutionise social networking to another level. Who would have thought that Facebook, which originated from a college room to cater connection amongst college's students, has become the most used social networking site in the world! Amongst other successful entrepreneurship ventures like Microsoft Corporation, Google Inc., Apple, Virgin Group and Wal-mart; Facebook is a fine example of how entrepreneurship can bring positive impacts to the world.

> Behind every successful business venture, there is an entrepreneur who visualises and transforms an unpolished idea into commercial success. Becoming an entrepreneur is never easy. It requires a unique blend of creativity, innovation, self-confidence, leadership, and multi-skills, all of which determines the success and failure of a new venture. There are many intertwining factors that determine an individual's plight to become an entrepreneur. These so-called antecedents can be both natural and circumstantial. Various research projects have been undertaken to establish and reaffirm the ideas of what makes an entrepreneur; i.e. whether they are born (natural-tendency), or made and educated to become one (circumstantial-tendency). In another interesting development, many business schools took the initiative to offer entrepreneurship education to the public.

> In this chapter, the author's perspective of entrepreneurship education in universities is discussed in detail. The chapter is arranged according to sub-topics of:

University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation 177

 As a process where an energetic person (entrepreneur) with high locus of control but a moderate risk taker, who also has strong need for achievement, maximises opportunities, takes initiative, and organises some social and economic mechanisms and at the same time accepting risks of failure (Drucker, 1964; McClleland, 1961, 1965;

A person cognitively recognises opportunity through his or her psychosocial traits

 The action taken by the individual or firm in order to cash-in the opportunity by the ability to create and build something from practicality nothing (Timmons, 1989). An act of opportunity exploitation by an individual as a necessary step in creating a

Nonetheless, an effort to come up with a comprehensive definition of entrepreneur was provided by Shane (2003), whereby he defines entrepreneur as "an individual who involves in an activity of discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities to introduce new goods and services, ways of organising markets, processes, and raw materials through organisation efforts that previously had not existed." His definition was based on five

 Entrepreneurship requires opportunities, where it expresses the effect upon which individual take action on an opportunity, therefore intention can be regarded as a

 Entrepreneurship requires variance amongst individuals; this is better explained through the demonstrations of an individual's ability to recognise an opportunity, either through experience, access to resources or information, as well as through volition of individuals to champion an opportunity through the entrepreneurial

Risk bearing decision is made to act on opportunity that is unknown and uncertain

Formation of an organisation, whereby the entrepreneurial process requires organising

Despite of various entrepreneur typologies amongst the scholars, there is a single beneficial value that an entrepreneur cans offers. Many scholars acknowledge that entrepreneurship plays a prominent role as a social adjuster (Jack & Anderson, 1999) within a domestic economy that can bring economic development worldwide (Dana, 2001; Garavan &

In the light of dynamic economic changes, the interest on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs are becoming very noticeable. Many studies were performed to understand the dimensions of an entrepreneur in the form of; (1) effect of family characteristics (Djankov, Qian , Roland, & Zhuravskaya, 2005) , (2) gender effects (Gupta, Turban, Wasti, & Sikdar, 2009) and (3)

Perhaps, this phenomenal is an answer to many socio-economic issues. However, the entrepreneur as an individual who is a centre of entrepreneurship is likely to consider as a rare breed. In this chapter, issues of whether entrepreneur is born, made or educated will be

and / or creating of a new way of exploiting the opportunity and; Innovation activity was held, either Schumpeterian or Kirznerian.

motivation to become an entrepreneur (Segal, Borgia, & Schoenfeld, 2005)

successful business in the entrepreneurial process (Choi & Shepherd, 2004).

Rotter, 1966; A. Shapero, 1975).

(Katz, 1992).

assumptions namely;

process;

discussed in detail.

catalyst to action;

(whether profit or loss);

O'Cinneide, 1994; Ibrahim & Soufani, 2002).

#### **1.1 Entrepreneurship background**

Until today, there is no single agreement amongst scholars in the entrepreneurship academia pertaining to the actual definition of an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship due to its complex multi-facets nature (Sexton & Bowman, 1984; J.L. Thompson, 2004). Earlier, Vesper (1980) proposed that in order to manage any potential confusion; the definitions of 'entrepreneurship' and 'an entrepreneur' need to be treated differently altogether depending on which perspectives an individual subscribed to (e.g. academician, economist, psychologist, business persons and politicians). For that logical reason, the definition of an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship need to be addressed and corresponded as according to the situation, audience and its user respectively.

According to Praag & Versloot (2007), the study of entrepreneurship is still evolving and those working in the field continue to be engaged in conceptual and methodological debates. Various issues such as whether entrepreneurship can be taught to others (Henry, Hill, & Leitch, 2005); and if yes, what is the potential outcome (Matlay, 2008) dominated discussions amongst entrepreneurship academia in the past few years. Meanwhile, taking into consideration the recent economic crisis, an issue of whether the nature of entrepreneurship can respond to social and cultural movements in the new economic era especially after the latest economic crisis in 2008 (Rae, 2010) became the latest viewpoint.

#### **2. Definition of entrepreneur**

As an individual who is centred in any entrepreneurship endeavour, entrepreneur is someone that is regarded as a chosen one who possessed special abilities to spot and exploit commercial opportunity(D. F. Kuratko, Morris, & Covin, 2011). Shane (2003) described an entrepreneur as a key unit of analysis of an entrepreneurial organisation.

In this regard, there are two schools of thoughts regarding the definition of entrepreneur. The former revolves around the economic concept and the latter revolves around the social psychology concept.

The definition of an entrepreneur according to economists mainly focuses on an entrepreneur as one of the factors of production of economy. They further explained an entrepreneur's position, roles and functions in the economic landscape as compared to other employment positions. The compilations of entrepreneur definitions based on economic scholars are as follows:-

Meanwhile, the latter entrepreneur definition comes from the social psychologist scholars. They look at personality dimensions of an entrepreneur. The compilation of psychologydriven entrepreneur's definition is as follows:-

Until today, there is no single agreement amongst scholars in the entrepreneurship academia pertaining to the actual definition of an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship due to its complex multi-facets nature (Sexton & Bowman, 1984; J.L. Thompson, 2004). Earlier, Vesper (1980) proposed that in order to manage any potential confusion; the definitions of 'entrepreneurship' and 'an entrepreneur' need to be treated differently altogether depending on which perspectives an individual subscribed to (e.g. academician, economist, psychologist, business persons and politicians). For that logical reason, the definition of an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship need to be addressed and corresponded as according to

According to Praag & Versloot (2007), the study of entrepreneurship is still evolving and those working in the field continue to be engaged in conceptual and methodological debates. Various issues such as whether entrepreneurship can be taught to others (Henry, Hill, & Leitch, 2005); and if yes, what is the potential outcome (Matlay, 2008) dominated discussions amongst entrepreneurship academia in the past few years. Meanwhile, taking into consideration the recent economic crisis, an issue of whether the nature of entrepreneurship can respond to social and cultural movements in the new economic era especially after the latest economic crisis in 2008 (Rae, 2010) became the latest viewpoint.

As an individual who is centred in any entrepreneurship endeavour, entrepreneur is someone that is regarded as a chosen one who possessed special abilities to spot and exploit commercial opportunity(D. F. Kuratko, Morris, & Covin, 2011). Shane (2003) described an

In this regard, there are two schools of thoughts regarding the definition of entrepreneur. The former revolves around the economic concept and the latter revolves around the social

The definition of an entrepreneur according to economists mainly focuses on an entrepreneur as one of the factors of production of economy. They further explained an entrepreneur's position, roles and functions in the economic landscape as compared to other employment positions. The compilations of entrepreneur definitions based on economic

 An individual who undertakes the risk of new ventures by investing, transforming and making profits after the resale stages. Sources from Richard Cantillon (Schaper &

 An assembler of the other factors of production (labour, land and capital) and act as an agent to further bring in an economic change to the society. (Menger, 1871; Mills, 1848) An act of 'creative destruction' by an individual (innovator) that develops untried technology and at the same time manages the risk involved. (Schumpeter, 1934)

Meanwhile, the latter entrepreneur definition comes from the social psychologist scholars. They look at personality dimensions of an entrepreneur. The compilation of psychology-

A person who forms an organisation for commercial purpose (Smith, 1776)

entrepreneur as a key unit of analysis of an entrepreneurial organisation.

**1.1 Entrepreneurship background**

**2. Definition of entrepreneur**

psychology concept.

scholars are as follows:-

Volery, 2004)

driven entrepreneur's definition is as follows:-

the situation, audience and its user respectively.

Nonetheless, an effort to come up with a comprehensive definition of entrepreneur was provided by Shane (2003), whereby he defines entrepreneur as "an individual who involves in an activity of discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities to introduce new goods and services, ways of organising markets, processes, and raw materials through organisation efforts that previously had not existed." His definition was based on five assumptions namely;

Despite of various entrepreneur typologies amongst the scholars, there is a single beneficial value that an entrepreneur cans offers. Many scholars acknowledge that entrepreneurship plays a prominent role as a social adjuster (Jack & Anderson, 1999) within a domestic economy that can bring economic development worldwide (Dana, 2001; Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994; Ibrahim & Soufani, 2002).

In the light of dynamic economic changes, the interest on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs are becoming very noticeable. Many studies were performed to understand the dimensions of an entrepreneur in the form of; (1) effect of family characteristics (Djankov, Qian , Roland, & Zhuravskaya, 2005) , (2) gender effects (Gupta, Turban, Wasti, & Sikdar, 2009) and (3) motivation to become an entrepreneur (Segal, Borgia, & Schoenfeld, 2005)

Perhaps, this phenomenal is an answer to many socio-economic issues. However, the entrepreneur as an individual who is a centre of entrepreneurship is likely to consider as a rare breed. In this chapter, issues of whether entrepreneur is born, made or educated will be discussed in detail.

University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation 179

technical competence, autonomy or independence, security or stability.

Meanwhile, circumstantial tendency factors explained that an entrepreneur is made from the socio-economic system where he or she experienced several stimulant factors that derived from social and economic setting. These factors will then trigger the tendency to become an entrepreneur. The variables from circumstantial tendency (e.g. cognition, pushpull factors and economic model) are amongst topics that extensively research prior to the emergence of socio-psychological models of Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen, 1987), Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) and Entrepreneurial Event Model (A. Shapero & Sokol, 1982). The socio-psychological models were found to be more in parsimony yet robust and were capable to explained both natural and circumstantial trajectories into a

Based on literature, there are three models that represent natural tendency trajectories

This model described entrepreneurial action as derived from the unique cognitive processes, (Baron, 1998), effectuation-oriented (Sarasvathy, 1998) and cognized as a series of 'interesting projects' by an individual (Meyer, 2004). The Cognition Model describes an entrepreneurial action as derived from the human cognitive process. These antecedents then predispose them to an entrepreneurial activity. Firstly, Baron (1998) stated that an entrepreneur possesses unique cognitive processes (mind sets, biases and habitual heuristics). Then, Sarasvathy (1998) found out that an entrepreneur is more often effectuation-oriented whereas an non-entrepreneur tends to be more causaloriented. In addition, Meyer (2004) found out that entrepreneurial venture cognized as a series of 'interesting projects' by an individual. Finally, Lee & Venkataraman (2006) proposed that every individual has two different opportunities; entrepreneurial that is defined as uncertain opportunities and non-entrepreneurial that is defined as less uncertain opportunities. The market for non-entrepreneurial options generally operates more efficiently than the market for entrepreneurial options. They held that people, who have higher level of Individual Aspiration Vector (IAV), tend to search for

This model theorised the powerful motivations of perceived opportunity and the powerful force of necessity leading an individual to become entrepreneur (Alstete, 2002;

**3.2 Circumstantial tendency to become an entrepreneur**

single research framework.

entrepreneurial opportunities.

*Push-pull Factors Model*

*Cognition Model*

namely:-

and jobs requirements such as dynamic career typology (Holland, 1959) and Career Anchor theory (E.H. Schein, 1978). The approach was explored as early as the late 1950s. Holland (1959) came up with dynamic career typology by setting out the theory of an individual seeking vocational satisfaction by matching their specific personalities and traits to one of six career types: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising and Conventional (RIASEC Model). In addition, Schein (1978), then introduced the Career Anchor theory where he theorised that a person's career self-concept revolves around eight career anchors consisting of; (1) autonomy, (2) security, (3) technical, (4) creativity, (5) managerial, (6) basic values, (7) motives, and (8) needs. These anchors were then categorised and paired under categories of basic values, motives and needs,

#### **3. The trajectories of an entrepreneur's**

Based on literature, there are six types of entrepreneurial trajectories identified in explaining the action of an individual choosing to become entrepreneur. The six trajectories factors are namely; (1) traits & characteristics, (2) cognition, (3) career-selection, (4) push-pull factors, (5) demographic and (6) economic.

All these trajectory variables can later be divided into 2 main groups of; (1) natural tendency (born) and (2) circumstantial tendency (made and educated)

Table 1.1. Compilations of Tendency Variable

#### **3.1 Natural tendency to become an entrepreneur**

In recent years, natural or biological variables (e.g. demographic, traits and characteristics and career-selection) deemed to be too deterministic and often results in small explanatory power (N. F. Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000) and these exogenous factors cannot work in isolation (Prediger & Vansickle, 1992). Thus, eventually these variables were held in reserve list by scholars for quite a period of time. However, these variables gained new perspectives along with the advancement of biological science when several pieces of research confirmed that these variables genetically influenced entrepreneurial behaviour (Shane, Nicolaou, Cherkas, & Spector, 2010; Zhang et al., 2009).

Amongst others, Nikolaou et al., (2008) suggests that it is important to consider genetic factors to explain why people engage in entrepreneurial activities because they have found evidence that indicates relatively high heritabilities for entrepreneurship in genes, with little effect of family environment and upbringing. With this indication, we can argue that the natural tendency variables are somehow still important to explain entrepreneurial behaviour.

*Demographic Variable*

Based on literature, there are three prominent models of natural tendency variables: This model proposes that demographic factors like age, gender, race and others impacts the entrepreneurial decision of an individual (R.D Hisrich & Brush, 1985; Light & Rosenstein, 1995; Ronstadt, 1987). An example of push factors can be found in Hisrich and Brush (1985), where they found out that female entrepreneurs, especially married women, were influenced by push factor such as job dissatisfactions to be a common catalyst to their entrepreneurial activity.

and jobs requirements such as dynamic career typology (Holland, 1959) and Career Anchor theory (E.H. Schein, 1978). The approach was explored as early as the late 1950s. Holland (1959) came up with dynamic career typology by setting out the theory of an individual seeking vocational satisfaction by matching their specific personalities and traits to one of six career types: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising and Conventional (RIASEC Model). In addition, Schein (1978), then introduced the Career Anchor theory where he theorised that a person's career self-concept revolves around eight career anchors consisting of; (1) autonomy, (2) security, (3) technical, (4) creativity, (5) managerial, (6) basic values, (7) motives, and (8) needs. These anchors were then categorised and paired under categories of basic values, motives and needs, technical competence, autonomy or independence, security or stability.

#### **3.2 Circumstantial tendency to become an entrepreneur**

Meanwhile, circumstantial tendency factors explained that an entrepreneur is made from the socio-economic system where he or she experienced several stimulant factors that derived from social and economic setting. These factors will then trigger the tendency to become an entrepreneur. The variables from circumstantial tendency (e.g. cognition, pushpull factors and economic model) are amongst topics that extensively research prior to the emergence of socio-psychological models of Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen, 1987), Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) and Entrepreneurial Event Model (A. Shapero & Sokol, 1982). The socio-psychological models were found to be more in parsimony yet robust and were capable to explained both natural and circumstantial trajectories into a single research framework.

Based on literature, there are three models that represent natural tendency trajectories namely:-

*Cognition Model*

178 Entrepreneurship – Born, Made and Educated

Based on literature, there are six types of entrepreneurial trajectories identified in explaining the action of an individual choosing to become entrepreneur. The six trajectories factors are namely; (1) traits & characteristics, (2) cognition, (3) career-selection, (4) push-pull factors,

All these trajectory variables can later be divided into 2 main groups of; (1) natural tendency

In recent years, natural or biological variables (e.g. demographic, traits and characteristics and career-selection) deemed to be too deterministic and often results in small explanatory power (N. F. Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000) and these exogenous factors cannot work in isolation (Prediger & Vansickle, 1992). Thus, eventually these variables were held in reserve list by scholars for quite a period of time. However, these variables gained new perspectives along with the advancement of biological science when several pieces of research confirmed that these variables genetically influenced entrepreneurial behaviour (Shane, Nicolaou,

Amongst others, Nikolaou et al., (2008) suggests that it is important to consider genetic factors to explain why people engage in entrepreneurial activities because they have found evidence that indicates relatively high heritabilities for entrepreneurship in genes, with little effect of family environment and upbringing. With this indication, we can argue that the natural

Based on literature, there are three prominent models of natural tendency variables: This model proposes that demographic factors like age, gender, race and others impacts the entrepreneurial decision of an individual (R.D Hisrich & Brush, 1985; Light & Rosenstein, 1995; Ronstadt, 1987). An example of push factors can be found in Hisrich and Brush (1985), where they found out that female entrepreneurs, especially married women, were influenced by push factor such as job dissatisfactions to be a common

This model theorises that an individual becomes an entrepreneur because of his or her unique personality traits and personal characteristics such as need of achievement, high internal locus-of-control, risk-taking propensity, and personal values of independence

This model points out that the decision to become an entrepreneur is actually derived from the development of career anchors and the fits between the individual skills sets

tendency variables are somehow still important to explain entrepreneurial behaviour.

**Natural Tendency Variables Circumstantial Tendency Variables**

Cognition Push-pull factors Economic

**3. The trajectories of an entrepreneur's**

Demographic Traits & Characteristics Career-selection

Table 1.1. Compilations of Tendency Variable

Cherkas, & Spector, 2010; Zhang et al., 2009).

catalyst to their entrepreneurial activity.

*Traits and Characteristics Variable*

(Brockhaus, 1982). *Career-selection Variable*

*Demographic Variable*

**3.1 Natural tendency to become an entrepreneur**

(born) and (2) circumstantial tendency (made and educated)

(5) demographic and (6) economic.

This model described entrepreneurial action as derived from the unique cognitive processes, (Baron, 1998), effectuation-oriented (Sarasvathy, 1998) and cognized as a series of 'interesting projects' by an individual (Meyer, 2004). The Cognition Model describes an entrepreneurial action as derived from the human cognitive process. These antecedents then predispose them to an entrepreneurial activity. Firstly, Baron (1998) stated that an entrepreneur possesses unique cognitive processes (mind sets, biases and habitual heuristics). Then, Sarasvathy (1998) found out that an entrepreneur is more often effectuation-oriented whereas an non-entrepreneur tends to be more causaloriented. In addition, Meyer (2004) found out that entrepreneurial venture cognized as a series of 'interesting projects' by an individual. Finally, Lee & Venkataraman (2006) proposed that every individual has two different opportunities; entrepreneurial that is defined as uncertain opportunities and non-entrepreneurial that is defined as less uncertain opportunities. The market for non-entrepreneurial options generally operates more efficiently than the market for entrepreneurial options. They held that people, who have higher level of Individual Aspiration Vector (IAV), tend to search for entrepreneurial opportunities.

*Push-pull Factors Model*

This model theorised the powerful motivations of perceived opportunity and the powerful force of necessity leading an individual to become entrepreneur (Alstete, 2002;

University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation 181

argued that in its simplest form, intentions predict behaviour, while in turn, certain specific variables predict intention. Thus, intention serves as a conduit to better understanding the act itself. Prior to that,(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) proved that there is a relationship between an opportunity and intention as they found out that opportunity perceptions reflect an intentional process; in short, intentions are driven by perceptions of controllability and by perceptions of desirability. Later, Shapero (1982) established research frameworks that test the relationship of an entrepreneurial intention and opportunity-exploitation. He found out that an entrepreneurial intention is basically formed when someone perceives there is a

It can be described by Kuratko (2005) that the opportunity-spotting itself does not permeate an individual as an entrepreneur if he or she did not act on it. The entrepreneurial-act involves the initiative and exploitative traits (Blawatt, 1998; Bridge, O'Neill, & Cromie, 1998; A. Gibb, 1987; Hamilton & Harper, 1994; J.L Thompson, 1999) and planning to achieve the outcome because he or she possesses high internal locus of control (Cromie, 1998; Cromie &

There is much literature on why people start their own businesses. However as stated by Reynolds (1995), little is known about why people create new businesses or what antecedents factors support the start-up decision. Scholars have come up with various reasons like businesses are created as a result of the purposeful intent and resolute action of courageous individuals (Learned, 1992; E.H. Schein, 1983). The common motives that were proposed by previous scholars were classic profit motivation (Drucker, 1953; McClleland, 1961; Penrose, 1959); opportunistic profit seekers (Williamson, 1975); autonomy and creativity (E.H. Schein, 1978); individual attributes and environmental factors (Gartner,

This leads to a comprehension that entrepreneurial intentions are actually central to the understanding of the entrepreneurship process because entrepreneurial intentions form the footing for the founding of new organisations (N.F. Krueger, 1993). The logical explanations are that individuals can come up with various reasons why he or she wants to be selfemployed and start new business ventures (e.g. Drucker, 1953, Penrose, 1959, McClelland, 1961, Liechenstein, 1966, Williamson, 1975, Schein, 1978, Gartner, 1985, Scheinberg and MacMillan, 1988, Venkataraman, 1994) but without intention, action is unlikely. Therefore, entrepreneurial intentions are crucial to understand the overall process of entrepreneurship as they serve as the key initial instrument for subsequent actions and events that are related to opportunity recognition, organisational founding and self-employment (B.J. Bird, 1988;

potential and opportunity that needs to be exploited.

1985); and wealth creation (Scheinberg, 1988).

1992; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Crant, 1996; N.F. Krueger, 1993).

**5. Graduate-career making theories & entrepreneurship education**

Socio-psychological model (i.e. Entrepreneurial Intention Model) verifies that by combining natural and circumstantial trajectories, entrepreneurial intention of its receiver will be significantly increased (Liñán & Chen, 2006; M.N. Zainuddin & Mohd Rejab, 2010). There is a sense of realisation by policy makers and scholars who are looking for the best avenue to apply entrepreneurial intention model in the university confinement. This move is based upon belief that potential students who will receive entrepreneurship education may

**5.1 Relationship of career-choice models and university's setting**

Johns, 1983; Rotter, 1966).

Birley & Westhead, 1994; Cooper & Dunkelberg, 1981; Denison & Alexander, 1986; Orhan & Scott, 2001; P Reynolds et al., 2004; Shane, Kolvereid, & Westhead, 1991). For an example, in one of the study, Hisrich and Brush (1985) found out that female entrepreneurs, especially married women, were influenced by push factors to be a common catalyst to their entrepreneurial activity

*Economic Model*

This model proposes that a rational individual will perform subjective utility analyses to evaluate the benefits of career options. Therefore, if the result of the analyses shows that the entrepreneurial related career will bring more economic benefit to the individual, he or she will choose to be an entrepreneur (Kirzner, 1973).

#### **4. Entrepreneurial intention: Bridge of entrepreneurial tendency to entrepreneurial action**

The emergence of the socio-psychological perspective in explaining action of individuals to become entrepreneur has encourage more related research determining the effect of both natural and circumstantial effects towards entrepreneurial behaviour (Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2006; Lin, 2006).

One of the prominent independent variable introduced from the socio-psychological model is Entrepreneurial Intention variable introduced in Entrepreneurial Intention Model (N. F. Krueger, et al., 2000).

This variable is indeed a very important finding because firstly, according to Bird (1988), intention actually can capture and explained of how an individual thinks as it is structurally rational and intuitive resulting from: (1) social, (2) political, (3) economic, (4) personal history, (5) personality and (6) personal ability factors. Interestingly, she (Bird) argued that entrepreneurial intention is something that is unique for an individual, yet it can also be cultured and nurtured through the aforementioned variables. Secondly, Learned (1992) proposed that the formation of intentions is the result of the interaction of psychological traits and background experiences of the individual with situations that are favourable to entrepreneurship. Intention to found assumes that some individuals will encounter situations that will interact with their traits and backgrounds that cause the intention to become self-employed. Intentioned individuals will ultimately make the decision to start a business or abandon the attempt to start the business depending upon the sense made of the attempt. This variable reflects the missing link between entrepreneurial recognition and entrepreneurial action.

It can explain here whereby, the entrepreneurial intentions process may begin with the individual's personal needs, values, wants, habits, and beliefs (Bird, 1988). Along the process, there are a lot of natural and circumstantial factors that interact with each other's (e.g. demographic, traits and characteristics, career-selection, cognition, push and pull and economic factors) that may affect individual's intentions to become an entrepreneur or to start a business.

Furthermore, according to Ajzen (1991), an opportunity recognition activity (behaviour) would not translate into an action if the individual does not purposely think about it in the first place (intention) because human action is guided by certain considerations. He further

common catalyst to their entrepreneurial activity

*Economic Model*

**entrepreneurial action**

2006; Lin, 2006).

Krueger, et al., 2000).

entrepreneurial action.

start a business.

Birley & Westhead, 1994; Cooper & Dunkelberg, 1981; Denison & Alexander, 1986; Orhan & Scott, 2001; P Reynolds et al., 2004; Shane, Kolvereid, & Westhead, 1991). For an example, in one of the study, Hisrich and Brush (1985) found out that female entrepreneurs, especially married women, were influenced by push factors to be a

This model proposes that a rational individual will perform subjective utility analyses to evaluate the benefits of career options. Therefore, if the result of the analyses shows that the entrepreneurial related career will bring more economic benefit to the

The emergence of the socio-psychological perspective in explaining action of individuals to become entrepreneur has encourage more related research determining the effect of both natural and circumstantial effects towards entrepreneurial behaviour (Kolvereid & Isaksen,

One of the prominent independent variable introduced from the socio-psychological model is Entrepreneurial Intention variable introduced in Entrepreneurial Intention Model (N. F.

This variable is indeed a very important finding because firstly, according to Bird (1988), intention actually can capture and explained of how an individual thinks as it is structurally rational and intuitive resulting from: (1) social, (2) political, (3) economic, (4) personal history, (5) personality and (6) personal ability factors. Interestingly, she (Bird) argued that entrepreneurial intention is something that is unique for an individual, yet it can also be cultured and nurtured through the aforementioned variables. Secondly, Learned (1992) proposed that the formation of intentions is the result of the interaction of psychological traits and background experiences of the individual with situations that are favourable to entrepreneurship. Intention to found assumes that some individuals will encounter situations that will interact with their traits and backgrounds that cause the intention to become self-employed. Intentioned individuals will ultimately make the decision to start a business or abandon the attempt to start the business depending upon the sense made of the attempt. This variable reflects the missing link between entrepreneurial recognition and

It can explain here whereby, the entrepreneurial intentions process may begin with the individual's personal needs, values, wants, habits, and beliefs (Bird, 1988). Along the process, there are a lot of natural and circumstantial factors that interact with each other's (e.g. demographic, traits and characteristics, career-selection, cognition, push and pull and economic factors) that may affect individual's intentions to become an entrepreneur or to

Furthermore, according to Ajzen (1991), an opportunity recognition activity (behaviour) would not translate into an action if the individual does not purposely think about it in the first place (intention) because human action is guided by certain considerations. He further

individual, he or she will choose to be an entrepreneur (Kirzner, 1973).

**4. Entrepreneurial intention: Bridge of entrepreneurial tendency to**

argued that in its simplest form, intentions predict behaviour, while in turn, certain specific variables predict intention. Thus, intention serves as a conduit to better understanding the act itself. Prior to that,(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) proved that there is a relationship between an opportunity and intention as they found out that opportunity perceptions reflect an intentional process; in short, intentions are driven by perceptions of controllability and by perceptions of desirability. Later, Shapero (1982) established research frameworks that test the relationship of an entrepreneurial intention and opportunity-exploitation. He found out that an entrepreneurial intention is basically formed when someone perceives there is a potential and opportunity that needs to be exploited.

It can be described by Kuratko (2005) that the opportunity-spotting itself does not permeate an individual as an entrepreneur if he or she did not act on it. The entrepreneurial-act involves the initiative and exploitative traits (Blawatt, 1998; Bridge, O'Neill, & Cromie, 1998; A. Gibb, 1987; Hamilton & Harper, 1994; J.L Thompson, 1999) and planning to achieve the outcome because he or she possesses high internal locus of control (Cromie, 1998; Cromie & Johns, 1983; Rotter, 1966).

There is much literature on why people start their own businesses. However as stated by Reynolds (1995), little is known about why people create new businesses or what antecedents factors support the start-up decision. Scholars have come up with various reasons like businesses are created as a result of the purposeful intent and resolute action of courageous individuals (Learned, 1992; E.H. Schein, 1983). The common motives that were proposed by previous scholars were classic profit motivation (Drucker, 1953; McClleland, 1961; Penrose, 1959); opportunistic profit seekers (Williamson, 1975); autonomy and creativity (E.H. Schein, 1978); individual attributes and environmental factors (Gartner, 1985); and wealth creation (Scheinberg, 1988).

This leads to a comprehension that entrepreneurial intentions are actually central to the understanding of the entrepreneurship process because entrepreneurial intentions form the footing for the founding of new organisations (N.F. Krueger, 1993). The logical explanations are that individuals can come up with various reasons why he or she wants to be selfemployed and start new business ventures (e.g. Drucker, 1953, Penrose, 1959, McClelland, 1961, Liechenstein, 1966, Williamson, 1975, Schein, 1978, Gartner, 1985, Scheinberg and MacMillan, 1988, Venkataraman, 1994) but without intention, action is unlikely. Therefore, entrepreneurial intentions are crucial to understand the overall process of entrepreneurship as they serve as the key initial instrument for subsequent actions and events that are related to opportunity recognition, organisational founding and self-employment (B.J. Bird, 1988; 1992; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Crant, 1996; N.F. Krueger, 1993).

#### **5. Graduate-career making theories & entrepreneurship education**

#### **5.1 Relationship of career-choice models and university's setting**

Socio-psychological model (i.e. Entrepreneurial Intention Model) verifies that by combining natural and circumstantial trajectories, entrepreneurial intention of its receiver will be significantly increased (Liñán & Chen, 2006; M.N. Zainuddin & Mohd Rejab, 2010). There is a sense of realisation by policy makers and scholars who are looking for the best avenue to apply entrepreneurial intention model in the university confinement. This move is based upon belief that potential students who will receive entrepreneurship education may

University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation 183

planning component, (3) an interaction practice component, and (4) university support

Amongst others, studies established the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This is due to the fact that education directly affects selfefficacy (Per Davidsson, 1995; N. Krueger & Brazeal, 1994) because educational settings appear to be the fertile ground for the development of perceived self-efficacy. Krueger & Carsrud (1993) found out that training programmes can have an impact on the antecedents of intention identified, which includes entrepreneurial self-efficacy. They found that perceived self-efficacy is influenced by the acquisition of management tools and exposure to entrepreneurial situations. In addition, other scholars e.g.(Ehrlich, De Noble, Jung, & Pearson, 2000; Hansemark, 1998; Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007) found that entrepreneurship education had a positive impact, enhancing variables such as need of achievements, locus of control and self-efficacy and the likelihood of action at some point in the future. Moreover, Noel (2001) found out that entrepreneurship education affects propensity to act as an entrepreneur, entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial self-

In contrast, scholars criticised limitations of entrepreneurship education programmes. Firstly, Dilts & Fowler (1999) argued that only certain teaching methods (i.e. traineeships and field learning) are more successful than others at preparing students for an entrepreneurial career. Therefore, if the educators and practitioners lack pedagogical knowledge and skills, it might affect the delivery of entrepreneurship education to the students thus affect their self-efficacy. It was confirmed when firstly Ooi & Ali (2004) found out that the lecturers without prior business experience and or involvement in family running businesses had low level of inclination to teach entrepreneurship and later Bennett (2006) found out that lecturers' definitions of entrepreneurship were indeed influenced by their backgrounds and by the number of years they had worked in the business sector. Therefore, if lecturers lacked experience in enterprise ownership and management, they were unable to precisely illustrate the entrepreneurship environment; and worst still, they would provide the wrong perceptions of entrepreneurship to students. The level of efficacy

In addition, empirical researches carried out by Davidsson (1989) and Storey (1994) found out that the relationship between education and entrepreneurship were mixed especially on the status of education. Othman et al., (2006) found out that there was not much difference in terms of personality traits including self-efficacy between the graduate and non-graduate

Pittaway & Cope (2007) through their systematic review of entrepreneurship education came out with the pressing problem statement that what is unclear is the extent to which such education impacts graduate entrepreneurship or whether it enables graduates to

In addition, the location of entrepreneurship education being situated also became an issue. Hindle (2007) argued whether business school is the right place to teach entrepreneurship

transferred to students from lecturers was less substantial.

entrepreneurs in urban Malaysia.

become more effective entrepreneurs.

component.

efficacy.

**6.2 Critics**

possess a natural tendency to become an entrepreneur (born) and universities may be able to generate the situation that exposes the students to become an entrepreneur (made); and these move will be execute through entrepreneurship education (educated entrepreneur).

This move seems to be an ideal win-win situation, where the supply and demand of entrepreneurship programme in the higher education market were met. According to Mwasalwiba (2010), this relationship exists through mutual perspective that policy makers, on the demand side believed that entrepreneurship education can create new ventures and job creation to the economy; and potential students can pursue their vocational interest to become self-employed or to assume family business traditions; while on the supply side, ambitious universities together with their academicians that seek academic advancement can provide innovative entrepreneurship education to cater to the needs at the opposite end.

Over time, universities have been seen as platforms to cultivate entrepreneurial behaviour and activities in many part of the globe especially in promoting self-employment (Basu & Virick, 2008; Kolvereid, 1996; M. N. Zainuddin & Ismail, 2011). Perhaps, this activity seems to be consistent with career-choice models that being proposed by scholars namely: (1) Savickas's (2002) Career Construction Theory, (2) Gottfredson's (2002) Circumscription, Compromise and Self Creation Theory (3) Krumboltz et al.(1976) Social Learning Theory and (4) Vroom's (1964) Expectancy Theory. Amongst others, Savickas argued that the vital stage of students' engagement with entrepreneurship came at the stage of "exploration," whereby their personality traits were explored rigorously with the education process. In this stage, students through "social learning" will observe and influenced by positive and consistent reinforcement from observing significant occupational role models (e.g. family, close friends, idols) and being exposed to images related to specific career. In addition, their perception about their career will be eventually taking shape through their "expectancy" instrumentality and valence. Once they discovered their potential, they will proceed with what they believed their good at and abandon unacceptable alternatives or "circumscription" as proposed by Gottfredson.

#### **6. Entrepreneurship education issues: Creating meaningful impression for new generation**

As entrepreneurship education paved its way into university syllabi, there were both supports and critics regarding its implementation.

#### **6.1 Supports**

Accordingly, there were many studies conducted in universities in determining the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education towards the students. Lüthje & Franke (2003) found the importance of contextual factors in the university environment which then (1) play a role in facilitating the occurrence and the intensity of entrepreneurial behaviours and (2) providing orientations to the behaviours of students through internal and external factors. Varela & Jimenez (2001) study has confirmed that the more universities invest in entrepreneurship education, the higher the entrepreneurship rates. Souitaris et al.,(2007) conceptualized good entrepreneurship programmes by suggesting balanced, 'good practice' programme grouped under four components namely (1) a taught component, (2) a business planning component, (3) an interaction practice component, and (4) university support component.

Amongst others, studies established the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This is due to the fact that education directly affects selfefficacy (Per Davidsson, 1995; N. Krueger & Brazeal, 1994) because educational settings appear to be the fertile ground for the development of perceived self-efficacy. Krueger & Carsrud (1993) found out that training programmes can have an impact on the antecedents of intention identified, which includes entrepreneurial self-efficacy. They found that perceived self-efficacy is influenced by the acquisition of management tools and exposure to entrepreneurial situations. In addition, other scholars e.g.(Ehrlich, De Noble, Jung, & Pearson, 2000; Hansemark, 1998; Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007) found that entrepreneurship education had a positive impact, enhancing variables such as need of achievements, locus of control and self-efficacy and the likelihood of action at some point in the future. Moreover, Noel (2001) found out that entrepreneurship education affects propensity to act as an entrepreneur, entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial selfefficacy.

#### **6.2 Critics**

182 Entrepreneurship – Born, Made and Educated

possess a natural tendency to become an entrepreneur (born) and universities may be able to generate the situation that exposes the students to become an entrepreneur (made); and these move will be execute through entrepreneurship education (educated entrepreneur). This move seems to be an ideal win-win situation, where the supply and demand of entrepreneurship programme in the higher education market were met. According to Mwasalwiba (2010), this relationship exists through mutual perspective that policy makers, on the demand side believed that entrepreneurship education can create new ventures and job creation to the economy; and potential students can pursue their vocational interest to become self-employed or to assume family business traditions; while on the supply side, ambitious universities together with their academicians that seek academic advancement can provide innovative entrepreneurship education to cater to the needs at the opposite end. Over time, universities have been seen as platforms to cultivate entrepreneurial behaviour and activities in many part of the globe especially in promoting self-employment (Basu & Virick, 2008; Kolvereid, 1996; M. N. Zainuddin & Ismail, 2011). Perhaps, this activity seems to be consistent with career-choice models that being proposed by scholars namely: (1) Savickas's (2002) Career Construction Theory, (2) Gottfredson's (2002) Circumscription, Compromise and Self Creation Theory (3) Krumboltz et al.(1976) Social Learning Theory and (4) Vroom's (1964) Expectancy Theory. Amongst others, Savickas argued that the vital stage of students' engagement with entrepreneurship came at the stage of "exploration," whereby their personality traits were explored rigorously with the education process. In this stage, students through "social learning" will observe and influenced by positive and consistent reinforcement from observing significant occupational role models (e.g. family, close friends, idols) and being exposed to images related to specific career. In addition, their perception about their career will be eventually taking shape through their "expectancy" instrumentality and valence. Once they discovered their potential, they will proceed with what they believed their good at and abandon unacceptable alternatives or

**6. Entrepreneurship education issues: Creating meaningful impression for**

As entrepreneurship education paved its way into university syllabi, there were both

Accordingly, there were many studies conducted in universities in determining the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education towards the students. Lüthje & Franke (2003) found the importance of contextual factors in the university environment which then (1) play a role in facilitating the occurrence and the intensity of entrepreneurial behaviours and (2) providing orientations to the behaviours of students through internal and external factors. Varela & Jimenez (2001) study has confirmed that the more universities invest in entrepreneurship education, the higher the entrepreneurship rates. Souitaris et al.,(2007) conceptualized good entrepreneurship programmes by suggesting balanced, 'good practice' programme grouped under four components namely (1) a taught component, (2) a business

"circumscription" as proposed by Gottfredson.

supports and critics regarding its implementation.

**new generation**

**6.1 Supports**

In contrast, scholars criticised limitations of entrepreneurship education programmes. Firstly, Dilts & Fowler (1999) argued that only certain teaching methods (i.e. traineeships and field learning) are more successful than others at preparing students for an entrepreneurial career. Therefore, if the educators and practitioners lack pedagogical knowledge and skills, it might affect the delivery of entrepreneurship education to the students thus affect their self-efficacy. It was confirmed when firstly Ooi & Ali (2004) found out that the lecturers without prior business experience and or involvement in family running businesses had low level of inclination to teach entrepreneurship and later Bennett (2006) found out that lecturers' definitions of entrepreneurship were indeed influenced by their backgrounds and by the number of years they had worked in the business sector. Therefore, if lecturers lacked experience in enterprise ownership and management, they were unable to precisely illustrate the entrepreneurship environment; and worst still, they would provide the wrong perceptions of entrepreneurship to students. The level of efficacy transferred to students from lecturers was less substantial.

In addition, empirical researches carried out by Davidsson (1989) and Storey (1994) found out that the relationship between education and entrepreneurship were mixed especially on the status of education. Othman et al., (2006) found out that there was not much difference in terms of personality traits including self-efficacy between the graduate and non-graduate entrepreneurs in urban Malaysia.

Pittaway & Cope (2007) through their systematic review of entrepreneurship education came out with the pressing problem statement that what is unclear is the extent to which such education impacts graduate entrepreneurship or whether it enables graduates to become more effective entrepreneurs.

In addition, the location of entrepreneurship education being situated also became an issue. Hindle (2007) argued whether business school is the right place to teach entrepreneurship

University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation 185

The discussion of all four components are organised into two sections. Firstly, each component will be reviewed and secondly, the suggestions on how to improve each

In general, scholars found that the current entrepreneurship education philosophy embraced by universities were inconclusive. As a multidisciplinary subject, the major challenges facing by university's academicians amongst others are; (1) an urgent need to shift their paradigm from providing instructions (the teaching paradigm) to providing learning (the learning paradigm) and emphasises on educational processes which actively engages students in the learning and a learning environment which cares for the learners (Fink, 2003); (2) difficulty to integrate and explain fully the different traditional social science disciplinary perspectives; economic, sociological, psychological and anthropological to the students effectively into a single platform (A. Gibb, 2005); (3) there were lack efforts in reviewing at the philosophical, theoretical and normative links that linked entrepreneurship education and education science as part of entrepreneurial culture. As a result, three education preoccupations remain under addressed namely social cognitive, psychocognitive and ethical theories (Bechard & Gregoire, 2005); and (4) there was a dominant pattern that entrepreneurship education has been based on an individual –centred mindset, that resulted in a strategy that aims to give general education to individuals on how to become entrepreneurs, missing the other ingredient of know-who element completely (Laukkanen, 2000). As a result, the tasks of academicians extracting suitable theories, designing syllabi and later deliver entrepreneurship education to the students becoming

In relation to inconclusive philosophy, the relevant strategic actions should be considered: In order to expedite the transition from the teaching paradigm to learning paradigm, universities need to transform their role of being a real incubator for students by gathering resources to provide experienced entrepreneurship education's academicians from both the industry and academia that are capable to expose students with what

 It is vital to change the current intellectual learning philosophy in the university from ''produce'' and ''perform,'' to ''pause'' and ''reflect'' (Cherwitz & Sullivan, 2002). Universities need to make space for students to contemplate their personal, professional and intellectual identities based on the experience they acquire; the kind of reflection that can yield sustained productivity and satisfaction in the long run. By doing so, universities can simulate the real entrepreneur world of tacit knowledge and heuristics

 In addition, universities need to introduce trajectory of ''discovery-ownershipaccountability'' (Cherwitz & Hurtado, 2007; Shaver & Scott, 1991). From the outset, students are encouraged to discover their personal, intellectual, and professional interests and to make explicit and thoughtful connections amongst these goals. Perhaps the adult learning philosophy (P. D. Hannon, 2005) that provides the foundation for reflection and analysis of current approaches against philosophical beliefs, through discussion about the potential contrasts and conflicts, between underpinning

they can expect from the world of entrepreneurship.

foundations and purpose-in-action can be a good blueprint.

component will be proposed respectively.

**6.3.1 Philosophy**

very enormous indeed.

judgment.

due to tendency of educators synonymising entrepreneurship with management practises (Binks, Starkey, & Mahon, 2006; A. Gibb, 1987).

Perhaps some of the above issues are limiting the potential of entrepreneurship education to its prime receiver. Collectively, all these issue can lead into a bigger issue of whether the positive entrepreneurial intention that is derived from entrepreneurial self-efficacy (from entrepreneurship education) can be translated further into solid entrepreneurial action? Bridging the gap between classroom's theories and real world's practical experiences became a major issue that inviting creative intervention by all stakeholders. Furthermore, the new generation of undergraduates who are exposed to many knowledge and information through new information technology available; altering their learning recognition process that demands fresh approaches to become relevant as one of the deciding factor in creating a new venture.

Again, perhaps all the supports and critics received pertaining to entrepreneurship education can be considered and addressed in a more integrated manner.

Based on above discussion, there is obvious gap between motive of and the delivery of entrepreneurship education. Considering the issues affecting entrepreneurship education; an author suggested that implementation of Integrated Strategic Entrepreneurship Education Delivery (ISEED) concept that comprises of two-tier holistic and specific approaches operated synergistically should be seriously considered.

#### **6.3 Integrated Strategic Entrepreneurship Education Delivery (ISEED) implementation concept**

This implementation concept will be a direct effect in integrating both holistic and specific approaches of entrepreneurship education that consists of 4Ps elements of Philosophy, Policy, Pedagogy and Practice (please refer to Figure 1.1)

Fig. 1.1. Integrated Strategic Entrepreneurship Education Delivery (ISEED)

The discussion of all four components are organised into two sections. Firstly, each component will be reviewed and secondly, the suggestions on how to improve each component will be proposed respectively.

#### **6.3.1 Philosophy**

184 Entrepreneurship – Born, Made and Educated

due to tendency of educators synonymising entrepreneurship with management practises

Perhaps some of the above issues are limiting the potential of entrepreneurship education to its prime receiver. Collectively, all these issue can lead into a bigger issue of whether the positive entrepreneurial intention that is derived from entrepreneurial self-efficacy (from entrepreneurship education) can be translated further into solid entrepreneurial action? Bridging the gap between classroom's theories and real world's practical experiences became a major issue that inviting creative intervention by all stakeholders. Furthermore, the new generation of undergraduates who are exposed to many knowledge and information through new information technology available; altering their learning recognition process that demands fresh approaches to become relevant as one of the

Again, perhaps all the supports and critics received pertaining to entrepreneurship

Based on above discussion, there is obvious gap between motive of and the delivery of entrepreneurship education. Considering the issues affecting entrepreneurship education; an author suggested that implementation of Integrated Strategic Entrepreneurship Education Delivery (ISEED) concept that comprises of two-tier holistic and specific

**6.3 Integrated Strategic Entrepreneurship Education Delivery (ISEED) implementation**

This implementation concept will be a direct effect in integrating both holistic and specific approaches of entrepreneurship education that consists of 4Ps elements of Philosophy,

> UPPER TIER: HOLISTIC

LOWER TIER: SPECIFIC

education can be considered and addressed in a more integrated manner.

approaches operated synergistically should be seriously considered.

Fig. 1.1. Integrated Strategic Entrepreneurship Education Delivery (ISEED)

Policy, Pedagogy and Practice (please refer to Figure 1.1)

(Binks, Starkey, & Mahon, 2006; A. Gibb, 1987).

deciding factor in creating a new venture.

**concept**

In general, scholars found that the current entrepreneurship education philosophy embraced by universities were inconclusive. As a multidisciplinary subject, the major challenges facing by university's academicians amongst others are; (1) an urgent need to shift their paradigm from providing instructions (the teaching paradigm) to providing learning (the learning paradigm) and emphasises on educational processes which actively engages students in the learning and a learning environment which cares for the learners (Fink, 2003); (2) difficulty to integrate and explain fully the different traditional social science disciplinary perspectives; economic, sociological, psychological and anthropological to the students effectively into a single platform (A. Gibb, 2005); (3) there were lack efforts in reviewing at the philosophical, theoretical and normative links that linked entrepreneurship education and education science as part of entrepreneurial culture. As a result, three education preoccupations remain under addressed namely social cognitive, psychocognitive and ethical theories (Bechard & Gregoire, 2005); and (4) there was a dominant pattern that entrepreneurship education has been based on an individual –centred mindset, that resulted in a strategy that aims to give general education to individuals on how to become entrepreneurs, missing the other ingredient of know-who element completely (Laukkanen, 2000). As a result, the tasks of academicians extracting suitable theories, designing syllabi and later deliver entrepreneurship education to the students becoming very enormous indeed.

In relation to inconclusive philosophy, the relevant strategic actions should be considered:

University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation 187

 There should be more research and development with small firms, larger corporations and government agencies. These parties can contribute grants for entrepreneurship practicum and students' consulting project. At the same time, they can absorb

In terms of entrepreneurship education's pedagogy, it can be argued that currently it will be minimal issue of whether entrepreneurship can be taught or not, since it was proven it can (Henry, et al., 2005; D.F. Kuratko, 2005). However there are three pressing issues involving pedagogy; (1) How should the academician teach entrepreneurship? (2) Does the conventional business style works in exposing students to entrepreneurship? And (3) How the perception of academicians regarding the nature of entrepreneurship can influence their

In the first issue, earlier on, Davies and Gibb (1991) argued that adoption of traditional education methods which focus mainly on theory and didactic approach were not significant in teaching entrepreneurship. Gibb (2007) cautioned that in most entrepreneurship educations, it seems like the dominant teaching methods are lectures, cases, projects and entrepreneur/stakeholder presentations, which may or may not be delivered in a manner designed to stimulate entrepreneurial behaviour; these teaching methods can be an anti-entrepreneurial mode because usually it was delivered in the confinement of classroom (Shepherd & Douglas, 1996). Earlier, Gibb (1993), classified what are the major differences between business school learning focus and entrepreneurship education/learning focus (Refer Table 1.2 below). Later, according to Hisrich and Peters (1998) there are three components of skills to be cover in entrepreneurship education pedagogical aspects namely technical, business management and personal entrepreneurial

Meanwhile, in relation to second issue, most entrepreneurship courses are focused upon business and business concepts. According to Gibb (2005; 2007), the concepts are hard to resist that even when they are applied to non-business situations, for example, medical practitioners, schools, health services, social and community services, and even local government, it is generally business principles that are taught. Most business school programmes embrace the conventional project piece of work, usually towards the end of a core plus modular course. This may be undertaken on a group or individual basis and may

successful student entrepreneurs into their organisation as intrapreneurs.

expectations (Carayannis, 2009).

**6.3.3 Pedagogy**

pedagogy style?

skills.

2009), thus university management should practise flexible staffing and appointment policies (A. Gibb, 2005). This can be done by including professorships of practice, adjunct professors, fellowship secondments for members of the stakeholder community, and visiting entrepreneur teaching fellowships to increase the pool of experts. Students will become more respectful and interested to acquire knowledge from well known experts. Next, educators should be allowed to take sabbatical leave and attend industrial attachment to oversee the development of entrepreneurship practices in the industry and for the educators (Omar & Mohamed, 2009) to adapt and upgrade themselves to become specialist mentors. Besides, educators should be given time flexibility to serve three pillars of academic enterprise of teaching, research and outreach, therefore they will become mutually complementary with students'

#### **6.3.2 Policy**

Meanwhile, the most obvious critic singled out to universities regarding entrepreneurship education is pertaining to the choice of location to deliver its entrepreneurship education (Birch, 2004; McMullan & Long, 1987; Solomon, 2007).

Not only are business school profoundly associated with entrepreneurship education but according to Gibb (2007), what is more challenging is that business schools have been urged by many of universities to actually capture the entrepreneurship education phenomenon and attempt to deal with it within the conventional (and largely corporate business) ways to organise this explicit knowledge. In fact, this viewed already echoed before by Birch (2004) as :-

*"Quite a few business schools teach you exactly the opposite of entrepreneurship. They teach you to do the quarterly numbers for Wall Street, teach you to conserve, teach all the wrong motivations for being an entrepreneur, teach you to take something that is there and make certain that it does well on Wall Street. Basically, business schools teach you to work for somebody"*

The initial policy of placing entrepreneurship education in business schools has resulted the teaching of entrepreneurship to be essentially derived from a corporate model which values order, formality, transparency, control, accountability, information processing, planning, rational decision making, clear demarcation, responsibilities and definitions (A. Gibb, 2005). By adopting business organisation style of learning, limited enterprise culture is created because such a culture will have to embrace all types of organisations that should include stakeholders and wider social community. The ideal policy should revolve in Wider contextual relevance stimulation of an 'enterprise culture' in society wide variety of different initiatives and programmes covering such diverse areas as financial literacy, industrial understanding, economic awareness, business education, small business education, business start up and personal transferable skills (A. Gibb & Cotton, 1998).

Based on various issue discovered, some related strategies are suggested:

2009), thus university management should practise flexible staffing and appointment policies (A. Gibb, 2005). This can be done by including professorships of practice, adjunct professors, fellowship secondments for members of the stakeholder community, and visiting entrepreneur teaching fellowships to increase the pool of experts. Students will become more respectful and interested to acquire knowledge from well known experts. Next, educators should be allowed to take sabbatical leave and attend industrial attachment to oversee the development of entrepreneurship practices in the industry and for the educators (Omar & Mohamed, 2009) to adapt and upgrade themselves to become specialist mentors. Besides, educators should be given time flexibility to serve three pillars of academic enterprise of teaching, research and outreach, therefore they will become mutually complementary with students' expectations (Carayannis, 2009).

 There should be more research and development with small firms, larger corporations and government agencies. These parties can contribute grants for entrepreneurship practicum and students' consulting project. At the same time, they can absorb successful student entrepreneurs into their organisation as intrapreneurs.

#### **6.3.3 Pedagogy**

186 Entrepreneurship – Born, Made and Educated

Meanwhile, the most obvious critic singled out to universities regarding entrepreneurship education is pertaining to the choice of location to deliver its entrepreneurship education

Not only are business school profoundly associated with entrepreneurship education but according to Gibb (2007), what is more challenging is that business schools have been urged by many of universities to actually capture the entrepreneurship education phenomenon and attempt to deal with it within the conventional (and largely corporate business) ways to organise this explicit knowledge. In fact, this viewed already echoed before by Birch (2004)

*"Quite a few business schools teach you exactly the opposite of entrepreneurship. They teach you to do the quarterly numbers for Wall Street, teach you to conserve, teach all the wrong motivations for being an entrepreneur, teach you to take something that is there and make certain that it does well on*

The initial policy of placing entrepreneurship education in business schools has resulted the teaching of entrepreneurship to be essentially derived from a corporate model which values order, formality, transparency, control, accountability, information processing, planning, rational decision making, clear demarcation, responsibilities and definitions (A. Gibb, 2005). By adopting business organisation style of learning, limited enterprise culture is created because such a culture will have to embrace all types of organisations that should include stakeholders and wider social community. The ideal policy should revolve in Wider contextual relevance stimulation of an 'enterprise culture' in society wide variety of different initiatives and programmes covering such diverse areas as financial literacy, industrial understanding, economic awareness, business education, small business education, business start up and personal transferable skills (A. Gibb & Cotton, 1998).

 A radical yet practical approach is to separate entrepreneurship education initiatives from business schools by creating a unique entrepreneurship centre parked under a strategic division that oversees the entrepreneurship development activities at faculties,

 In addition, adaptation to changes in a multidisciplinary area, requires continuous and frequent adjustments to what people do and how people do it (Lüsher & Lewis, 2008) and this requires the university management to embrace the Learning Organisation

 There needs to be less emphasis on organisational structure and concurrently emphasis on systems for facilitating and implementing change. By having a flexible, organic structure and system, a university's management will be more receptive to adopt and manage new technologies, especially ICT, due to less cumbersome procedures and rules that they have to adhere to (Gephart, Marsick, Van Buren, & Spiro, 1996) and it is considered as the primary condition influencing a university's ability to acquire new

 Take attention and action of growing literature that emphasises on the effectiveness and the roles of mentors and professional people that influence students (Turker & Selcuk,

(Birch, 2004; McMullan & Long, 1987; Solomon, 2007).

*Wall Street. Basically, business schools teach you to work for somebody"*

Based on various issue discovered, some related strategies are suggested:

including Engineering, IT, Humanity, Arts and others (Hindle, 2007).

**6.3.2 Policy**

as :-

policies.

knowledge (Kang & Snell, 2009).

In terms of entrepreneurship education's pedagogy, it can be argued that currently it will be minimal issue of whether entrepreneurship can be taught or not, since it was proven it can (Henry, et al., 2005; D.F. Kuratko, 2005). However there are three pressing issues involving pedagogy; (1) How should the academician teach entrepreneurship? (2) Does the conventional business style works in exposing students to entrepreneurship? And (3) How the perception of academicians regarding the nature of entrepreneurship can influence their pedagogy style?

In the first issue, earlier on, Davies and Gibb (1991) argued that adoption of traditional education methods which focus mainly on theory and didactic approach were not significant in teaching entrepreneurship. Gibb (2007) cautioned that in most entrepreneurship educations, it seems like the dominant teaching methods are lectures, cases, projects and entrepreneur/stakeholder presentations, which may or may not be delivered in a manner designed to stimulate entrepreneurial behaviour; these teaching methods can be an anti-entrepreneurial mode because usually it was delivered in the confinement of classroom (Shepherd & Douglas, 1996). Earlier, Gibb (1993), classified what are the major differences between business school learning focus and entrepreneurship education/learning focus (Refer Table 1.2 below). Later, according to Hisrich and Peters (1998) there are three components of skills to be cover in entrepreneurship education pedagogical aspects namely technical, business management and personal entrepreneurial skills.

Meanwhile, in relation to second issue, most entrepreneurship courses are focused upon business and business concepts. According to Gibb (2005; 2007), the concepts are hard to resist that even when they are applied to non-business situations, for example, medical practitioners, schools, health services, social and community services, and even local government, it is generally business principles that are taught. Most business school programmes embrace the conventional project piece of work, usually towards the end of a core plus modular course. This may be undertaken on a group or individual basis and may

University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation 189

From all the issues above, we can observe that current entrepreneurship education's pedagogy is a functional rather than a relationship/development stage organisation of the knowledge base. There is little evidence overall that project work is specifically designed to enhance the entrepreneurial capacity and disposition of students rather than to follow the

 Academicians should teach entrepreneurship through learning focus that is upon 'know how' and 'need to know' rather than functional expertise. The 'need to know' stems from the development problems and opportunities of the business. The challenge to academician is therefore to organise knowledge around organisation development processes, radically different from the conventional functional paradigms. In guiding them to the survival of a business in the early years, the target might, for example, be to anticipate the problems that lead to business failure and 'bring forward' the knowledge in such a way as to enable entrepreneurs to anticipate development problems before they occur and take remedial action. Bear in mind that such a problem-centered approach does not mean that conceptual analysis is sacrificed but only that concept is led by problem. Teaching focus should include action learning, problem-based learning and discovery teaching to develop entrepreneurial-focused students (Richardson &

 Furthermore, one of the way to instil entrepreneurship knowledge is through nonconventional way of students' consulting project (Heriot, Cook, Jones, & Simpson, 2008) through social enterprise chapters like Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) www.sife.org . This approach will somehow provide macro experiential learning (Wani, Garg, & Sharma, 2004) that not just affects their cognitive learning but also affective learning too. According to Kolb and Kolb (2005), by engaging students through experiential learning students can learn through feedback, conflict, differences, and disagreements that draw out their beliefs and ideas about a topic through holistic process that encompasses a person's cognition, thinking, feeling,

 In addition, there is a need to shift academic roles from "the sage on stage" to "a guide on the side," (P. D. Hannon, 2005). Anderson (2003) proposed entrepreneurship education and meaningful formal learning, supporting one of the three forms of interaction (i.e. student–teacher; student-student; student-content interactions) at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or timely effective as less interactive learning

According to Gibb (2007), much of entrepreneurial learning takes place by processes of trial and error and subsequent incremental improvement. However, there seems little room in much of the academic curriculum of universities' for learning to do (and about) something by a process of repeated practice. This is due to the fact that entrepreneurs seek knowledge on a "need to know," "know how" and "know who" basis rather than just merely the "know how" basis. All these three element of knowledge will bring forwards recognisable

business techniques (know-how). Therefore, amongst the suggestions are:

Hynes, 2008)

sequences.

**6.3.4 Practices**

perceiving, and behaving.

take the form of a case study, a somewhat disguised consultancy (with academic references) or the exploration of an academic concept in a small (often growing) business context. The context is dominantly that of business, the culture is that of corporate business, the pedagogical range used is narrow and over-focused upon cases.

A fine example is the usage of business plan as the central learning tool in entrepreneurship education (Hills, 1988; Solomon, 2007). What can be transpiring here is that yet there is little evidence that the notion of a plan is derived from entrepreneurial practice (invented by entrepreneurs). The overall problem therefore in giving the business plan a central place is that it creates the wrong metaphor for entrepreneurship. As with all instruments, however, it depends upon how it is used: but it cannot be a substitute for, and indeed should not form a barrier to, plunging into the waters of customer/stakeholder needs and demands and learning to adapt quickly to this experience (A. Gibb, 2007).

Finally, According to Bennett (2006), there was a positive relationship between the types pedagogy subscribed by academicians and their perception of the nature of entrepreneurship. Thus, it leads to different styles of pedagogy employed by academician in delivering entrepreneurship education. As an example, for academicians with business experience prior to joining universities, he or she may employ more real business approaches pedagogy and for those who are not, then learning may be focused more on case studies and problem solving the classroom.

Table 1.2. (1993) University Business School versus Entrepreneurial Education/Training Focus

From all the issues above, we can observe that current entrepreneurship education's pedagogy is a functional rather than a relationship/development stage organisation of the knowledge base. There is little evidence overall that project work is specifically designed to enhance the entrepreneurial capacity and disposition of students rather than to follow the business techniques (know-how). Therefore, amongst the suggestions are:

#### **6.3.4 Practices**

188 Entrepreneurship – Born, Made and Educated

take the form of a case study, a somewhat disguised consultancy (with academic references) or the exploration of an academic concept in a small (often growing) business context. The context is dominantly that of business, the culture is that of corporate business, the

A fine example is the usage of business plan as the central learning tool in entrepreneurship education (Hills, 1988; Solomon, 2007). What can be transpiring here is that yet there is little evidence that the notion of a plan is derived from entrepreneurial practice (invented by entrepreneurs). The overall problem therefore in giving the business plan a central place is that it creates the wrong metaphor for entrepreneurship. As with all instruments, however, it depends upon how it is used: but it cannot be a substitute for, and indeed should not form a barrier to, plunging into the waters of customer/stakeholder needs and demands and

Finally, According to Bennett (2006), there was a positive relationship between the types pedagogy subscribed by academicians and their perception of the nature of entrepreneurship. Thus, it leads to different styles of pedagogy employed by academician in delivering entrepreneurship education. As an example, for academicians with business experience prior to joining universities, he or she may employ more real business approaches pedagogy and for those who are not, then learning may be focused more on case

Assuming goals away Recognise the widely varied goals of

Learning in the classroom Learning while and through doing

Evaluation through written assessment Evaluation by judgement of people and

Table 1.2. (1993) University Business School versus Entrepreneurial Education/Training

**Entrepreneurial Education/ Training**

"Gut feel" decision making with limited

Understanding the values of those who

Seeking to apply and adjust in practise to

Developing the most appropriate solution

Gleaning information personally from any

Success in learning by solving problems

and everywhere, and weighting it

events through direct feedback

and learning from failure.

transmit and filter information

Making decisions on the basis of judgement of trust and competence of

basic principles of society

under pressure

**Learning Focus**

information

others

people

pedagogical range used is narrow and over-focused upon cases.

learning to adapt quickly to this experience (A. Gibb, 2007).

studies and problem solving the classroom.

Critical judgement after analysis of large

Seeking (impersonally) to verify absolute

Understanding basic principles of society in

Seeking the correct answer with time to do

Gleaning information from experts and

Success in learning measured by knowledge-based examination pass

**University/Business School Learning**

amounts of information

information itself

Understanding and recalling the

truth by study of information

the metaphysical sense

authoritative sources

**Focus**

it.

Focus

According to Gibb (2007), much of entrepreneurial learning takes place by processes of trial and error and subsequent incremental improvement. However, there seems little room in much of the academic curriculum of universities' for learning to do (and about) something by a process of repeated practice. This is due to the fact that entrepreneurs seek knowledge on a "need to know," "know how" and "know who" basis rather than just merely the "know how" basis. All these three element of knowledge will bring forwards recognisable

University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation 191

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, Traits, and Actions: Dispositional Prediction of Behavior in

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision*

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). *Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior*.

Alstete, J. W. (2002). On becoming an entrepreneur: an evolving typology. *International*

Anderson, A. R., & Jack, S. L. (2008). Role typologies for enterprising education: the

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the Mix Right Again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. *The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4*(2). Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when

Basu, A., & Virick, M. (2008, 20-22 March 2008). *Assessing Entrepreneurial Intentions Amongst*

Bechard, J.-P., & Gregoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship education research re-visited: the

Bennett, R. (2006). Business lecturers' perceptions of the nature of entrepreneurship. *International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 12*(165-188). Binks, M., Starkey, K., & Mahon, C. (2006). Entrepreneurship education and the business

Birch, D. (2004). Education Matters - But Does Entrepreneurship Education? *Academy of*

Bird, B. J. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. *Academy of*

Bird, B. J. (1992). The Operation of Intentions in Time: The Emergence of the New Venture.

Birley, S., & Westhead, P. (1994). A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact

Blawatt, K. R. (1998). *Entrepreneurship: process and management*. Scarborough, Ontario:

Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. *Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Summer*. Bridge, S., O'Neill, K., & Cromie, S. (1998). *Understanding Enterprise, Entrepreneurship & Small*

school. *Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18*(1), 1-18.

on firm growth and size. *Journal of Business Venturing, 9*(1), 7-31.

*Management Learning and Education, 3*(3), 289-229.

*Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17*(1), 11-20.

*Business*. London: Macmillan Publishing.

professional artisan? *Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15*(2), 259-

entrepreneurs think differently than other people. *Journal of Business Venturing, 13*,

*Students: A Comparative Study* Paper presented at the National Collegiate Investors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA) Conference 200, Getting to the point:ideas,

case of higher education. *Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4*(1), 22-43.

*Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 8*(4), 222-234.

Volume 20, pp. 1-63): Academic Press.

Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

process, products, Dallas, Texas.

*Management Review, 13*(3), 442-453.

Prentice-Hall Canada Inc.

*Processes, 50*(2), 179-211.

Personality and Social Psychology *Advances in Experimental Social Psychology* (Vol.

**8. References**

273.

275–294.

contextual experience to them and helps them to conceptualise and give broader meaning to their existing problems and opportunities. Therefore, there is a need to distinguish teaching concerning the phenomenon itself (the vocational domain) from teaching *about* the phenomenon (its meta aspects; its theory and the way that this phenomenon impacts on other phenomena). In addition, entrepreneurship practice coalesce a variety of roles, each demanding different skills, knowledge and capabilities (A. R. Anderson & Jack, 2008), thus there is a requirement to enable that process through some sort of integration. Thus, the author suggested the following:

 An increased focus on the context and learning by doing implies greater student involvement during the study. Involving the students in working on real business cases could range from case-based teaching, to involving the students in real start-ups and finally by letting the students start their own company. In addition to the degree of individual involvement from the students, the nature of the opportunity or business idea is important in entrepreneurship (Shane, 2003). The students could work on projects ranging from practical exercises which do not have any business potential, to real business projects with limited potential (e.g. regional scope), and finally high-potential global business ideas. Erikson and Gjellan, 2003;Johannisson et al., 2001

Fig. 1.2. Summary of ISEED Implementation

#### **7. Conclusion**

This chapter tackles the issue of entrepreneurship education phenomenon in universities. Subject to whether an entrepreneur is born, made and educated were discussed in details. Amongst others, the chapter discuss background of entrepreneurship, definition of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial trajectories, nature of entrepreneurial intention, relationship of graduate career-making and entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship education issues and finally Integrated Strategic Entrepreneurship Education Delivery (ISEED).

#### **8. References**

190 Entrepreneurship – Born, Made and Educated

contextual experience to them and helps them to conceptualise and give broader meaning to their existing problems and opportunities. Therefore, there is a need to distinguish teaching concerning the phenomenon itself (the vocational domain) from teaching *about* the phenomenon (its meta aspects; its theory and the way that this phenomenon impacts on other phenomena). In addition, entrepreneurship practice coalesce a variety of roles, each demanding different skills, knowledge and capabilities (A. R. Anderson & Jack, 2008), thus there is a requirement to enable that process through some sort of integration. Thus, the

 An increased focus on the context and learning by doing implies greater student involvement during the study. Involving the students in working on real business cases could range from case-based teaching, to involving the students in real start-ups and finally by letting the students start their own company. In addition to the degree of individual involvement from the students, the nature of the opportunity or business idea is important in entrepreneurship (Shane, 2003). The students could work on projects ranging from practical exercises which do not have any business potential, to real business projects with limited potential (e.g. regional scope), and finally high-potential global business ideas. Erikson and Gjellan, 2003;Johannisson et

This chapter tackles the issue of entrepreneurship education phenomenon in universities. Subject to whether an entrepreneur is born, made and educated were discussed in details. Amongst others, the chapter discuss background of entrepreneurship, definition of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial trajectories, nature of entrepreneurial intention, relationship of graduate career-making and entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship education issues and finally Integrated Strategic Entrepreneurship Education Delivery

author suggested the following:

Fig. 1.2. Summary of ISEED Implementation

al., 2001

**7. Conclusion**

(ISEED).

University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation 193

Garavan, T., & O'Cinneide, B. (1994). Entrepreneurship and Education Training

Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new

Gephart, M., Marsick, V., Van Buren, M., & Spiro, M. (1996). Learning organisations come

Gibb, A. (1987). Enterprise Culture – Its Meaning and Implications for Education and

Gibb, A. (1993). Enterprise culture and education: understanding enterprise education and

Gibb, A. (2005). *Towards the Entrepreneurial University : Entrepreneurship Education as a lever for change* National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) UK. Gibb, A. (2007). Creating the entrepreneurial university worldwide : Do we need a wholly

Gibb, A., & Cotton, J. (1998). *Background paper of Work Futures and the role of Entrepreneurship*

Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Theory of Circumscription, Compromise and Self Creation. In D.Brown (Ed.), *Career Choice and Development*. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The Role of Gender Stereotypes

Hamilton, R. T., & Harper, D. A. (1994). The Entrepreneur in Theory and Practice. *Journal of*

Hannon, P. D. (2005). *Graduate entrepreneurship in the UK: defining a research and education*

Hannon, P. D. (2005). Philosophies of enterprise and entrepreneurship education and

Hansemark, O. C. (1998). The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on need for

Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I. *Education + Training, 47*(2), 98-111. Heriot, K. C., Cook, R., Jones, R. C., & Simpson, L. (2008). The Use of Student Consulting

its links with small business entrepreneurship and wider educational goals.

different model of entrepreneurship. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), *Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: A general perspective*. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar

*and Enterprise in Schools and Further Education*. Paper presented at the Creating the

in Perceptions of Entrepreneurs and Intentions to Become an Entrepreneur.

*policy framework*. Paper presented at the 28th ISBE National Conference

challenges for higher education in the UK. *The International Journal of*

achievement and locus of control of reinforcement. *International Journal of*

Projects as an Active Learning Pedagogy: A Case Study in a Production/Operations Management Course. *Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative*

venture creation. *Academy of Management Review, 10*(2), 696-706.

Training. *Journal of European Industrial Training, 11*(2), 2-38.

alive. *Training and Development, 50*(1), 35-44.

*International Small Business Journal, 11*(3), 11-34.

*Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33*(2), 397-417.

*18*(8), 3-12.

Publishing.

Leading Edge Conference.

*Economic Studies, 21*(6), 3-18.

*Education, 6*, 463-481.

"Illuminating Entrepreneurship".

*Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6*(2), 105-114.

*Entrepreuneurial Behaviour & Research, 4*(1), 28-50.

Programmes; a review and evaluation-part 1. *Journal of European Industrial Training,*

Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D. L. S. C.A. Kent, & K.H.

Carayannis, E. G. (2009). *Role of universities in developing first-class entrepreneurs*. Putrajaya,Malaysia: National Higher Education Academy of Leadership Cherwitz, R. A., & Hurtado, A. L. (2007). Interns as Intellectual Entrepreneurs. *American*

Cherwitz, R. A., & Sullivan, C. A. (2002). Intellectual Entrepreneurship A Vision for Graduate Education. *Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 34*(6), 22-27. Choi, Y. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurs' Decisions to Exploit Opportunities

Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1981). *A new look at business entry Experiences of 1,805*

Crant, J. M. (1996). The Proactive Personality Scale as a Predictor of Entrepreneurial

Cromie, S. (1998). *Understanding Enterprise, Entrepreneurship and Small Business*: Macmillan

Cromie, S., & Johns, S. (1983). Irish entrepreneurs Some personal characteristics. *Journal of*

Dana, L. P. (2001). The education and training of entrepreneurs in Asia *Education + Training,*

Davidsson, P. (1989). Continued entrepreneurship: Ability , Need and Opportunity as determinants of small growth firm. *Journal of Business Venturing, 4*, 251-261. Davidsson, P. (1995). *Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intentions*. Paper presented at the RENT

Davies, L. G., & Gibb, A. A. (1991). *Recent research in entrepreneurship.* Paper presented at the

Denison, D. R., & Alexander, J. M. (1986). *Patterns and profiles of entrepreneurs: Data from*

Dilts, J. C., & Fowler, S. M. (1999). Internships; preparing students for an entrepreneurial

Djankov, S., Qian , Y., Roland, G., & Zhuravskaya, E. (2005). Who are Russia's Entrepreneurs? *Journal of the European Economic Association, 3*(2-3), 1-11.

Ehrlich, S. B., De Noble, A. F., Jung, D. I., & Pearson, D. (2000). *The impact of entrepreneurship*

Fink, L. D. (2003). *Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to*

*in training programs on an individual's entreprenurial self-efficacy*. Wellesley, MA:

*Designing College Courses ()* San Francisco, CA: Josse Bass Higher and Adult

*Association of University Professors (AAUP): Academe*.

*Journal of Management Studies, 30*(3), 377-395.

*entrepreneurs*. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

*Occupational Behaviour 4*, 317–324.

Intentions. *Journal of Small Business Management, 34*.

3rd International EIASM Workshop, Gower, London,.

career. *Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 11*(1), 51-63.

Friedman, T. (2005). *The World Is Flat*. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Drucker, P. F. (1953). The Liberal Discovers Big Business. *Yale Review*. Drucker, P. F. (1964). *Managing for Results*. New York: Harper and Row.

*entrepreneurship forums*. MA: Babson College.

Prentice-Hall.

Press Ltd.

*43*(8), 405-416(412).

IX Workshop.

Babson College.

Education.

Vesper (Ed.), *Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship* (pp. 39-56.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J:

University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation 195

Learned, K. E. (1992). What happened before the organization? A model of organization

Lee, J.-H., & Venkataraman, S. (2006). Aspirations, market offerings. and the pursuit of entreprenurial opportunities. *Journal of Business Venturing, 21*(1), 107-123. Light, I., & Rosenstein, C. (1995). *Race, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship in Urban America*. New

Lin, W. B. (2006). A comparative study on the trends of entrepreneurial behaviors of

Liñán, F., & Chen, Y.-W. (2006). *Testing the Entrepreneurial Intention Model on a Two-Country*

Lüsher, L., & Lewis, M. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: working through paradoxes. *Academy of Management Journal, 51*(2), 221-240. Lüthje, C., & Franke, N. (2003). The 'Making' of an Entrepreneur: Testing a Model of

Matlay, H. (2008). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes.

McClleland, D. C. (1965). Achievement Motivation can be developed. *Harvard Business*

McMullan, W. E., & Long, W. A. (1987). Entrepreneurship education in the nineties. *Journal*

Menger, C. (1871). *Principles of Economics* (J. Dingwall & B. F. Hoselitz, Trans. 1976 ed.).

Meyer, M. (2004). *Individual Inventors, Entrepreneurial Activity and Public Support Measures*.

Mills, J. S. (1848). *Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social*

Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching

Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T. D. (2008). Is the Tendency to Engage in Entrepreneurship Genetic? *Management Science, 54*(1), 167-179. Noel, T. W. (2001). *Effects of entrepreneurial education on intent to open a business.* Paper

Omar, I. C., & Mohamed, Z. (2009). *Current practises, challenges and the future of*

Ooi, Y. K., & Ali, H. (2004). *How Inclined Are Lecturers to Teach Entrepreneurship at University?* Paper presented at the International Conference on Management Education. Orhan, M., & Scott, D. (2001). Why women enter into entrepreneurship: an explanatory

*entrepreneurship education at Universiti Malaysia Kelantan*. Paper presented at the National Leadership Research Conference 2009: Entrepreneurship in Higher

Espoo: Institute of Strategy and International Business.Helsinki University of

*Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15*(2), 382 - 396

McClleland, D. C. (1961). *The Achieving Society*. New York: The Free Press.

Auburn,ALABAMA: Ludwig Von Mises Instistute.

*Philosophy* (Seventh ed.). London: Longmans, Green and Co.

presented at the Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.

model. *Women in Management Review, 16*(5), 232-243.

methods, and impact indicators. *Education + Training, 52*(1), 20-47.

enterprises in different strategies: Application of the social cognition theory. *Expert*

Entrepreneurial Intent among Engineering Students at MIT. *R&D Management, 33*,

formation. *Entrepreneurship Theory Practise, 17*, 39-48.

York: Aldine de Gruyter.

135-147.

Technology.

Education.

*Systems with Applications, 31*(2), 207-220.

*Review*(November-December), 6-24.

*of Business Venturing, 2*, 261-275.

*sample*: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.

Hills, G. E. (1988). Variations in university entrepreneurship education: An empirical study

Hindle, K. (2007). *Teaching entrepreneurship at university : from the wrong building to the right*

Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. G. (1985). *Women and minority entrepreneurs: A comparative analysis*.

Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (1999). Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise

Kang, S., & Snell, S. (2009). Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A

Katz, J. (1992). A psychological cognitive model of employment status choice.

Kirzner, I. M. (1973). *Competition and Entrepreneurship*. Chicago and London: The University

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing

Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of self-employment status choice intentions. *Entrepreneurship*

Kolvereid, L., & Isaksen, E. (2006). New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-

Krueger, N., & Brazeal, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.

Krueger, N., & Carsrud, A. (1993). Entrepreneurial Intention: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior. *Entrepreneurial and Regional Development, 5*, 315-330. Krueger, N. F. (1993). The Impact of Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure on Perceptions of New Venture Feasibility and Desirability. *Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18*. Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial

Krumboltz, J. D., Mitchell, A. M., & Jones, G. B. (1976). A social learning theory of career

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends,

Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Covin, J. G. (2011). *Corporate Innovation and Entrepreneurship*

Laukkanen, M. (2000). Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship

education: creating micromechanisms for endogenous regional growth.

employment. *Journal of Business Venturing, 21*(6), 866-885.

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

*Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12*(1), 25-47.

and Challenges *Journal of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice*.

*Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 18*(3), 91-104.

selection. *Counseling Psychologist, 6*(71–81).

(3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.

culture: Producing reflective practitioners. *International Journal of Entrepreneurial*

Framework for Human Resource Management. *Journal of Management Studies, 46*(1),

experiential learning in higher education. *Academy of Management Learning & Higher*

Hisrich, R. D., & Peters, M. P. (1998). *Entrepreneurship*. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. *Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6*, 35-44. Ibrahim, A., & Soufani, K. (2002). Entrepreneurship education and training in Canada: a

of an evolving field *Journal of Business Venturing, 3*, 109-122.

*philosophy*. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing.

critical assessment. *Education + Training, 44*(8/9), 421-430.

Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

*Behavior and Research, 5*, 110-125.

*Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17*(1), 29-37.

65-92.

of Chicago Press.

*Education, 4*(2), 193-212.

*Theory & Practice, 21*(47-57).

University's Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Meaningful Impression for New Generation 197

Shane, S. (2003). *A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus*.

Shane, S., Kolvereid, L., & Westhead, P. (1991). An exploratory examination of the reasons

Shane, S., Nicolaou, N., Cherkas, L., & Spector, T. D. (2010). Genetics, the Big Five, and the tendency to be self-employed. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 95*(6), 1154-1162. Shapero, A. (1975). The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur,. *Psychology Today, 8*, 83-88. Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. . . In D. L. S. C.

Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture

Shepherd, D. A., & Douglas, E. J. (1996). *Is Management Education Developing or Killing the*