The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm
JSBED 15,2
Doctoral education in entrepreneurship: a European case study
336
David Urbano Business Economics Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Marine´s Aponte Departament of Finance, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and
Nuria Toledano Business Economics Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse a European doctoral programme in entrepreneurship. The specific objectives are the following: to illustrate the process to design and launch the doctoral programme; to describe its main characteristics; and to explore the conditioning factors to its success. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology is based upon a systematic application of a longitudinal case-study approach. Multiple sources of evidence were gathered. These included interviews with key informants and documentary data. Additionally, a participant observation approach was adopted. Concerning the theoretical approach, the related literature in entrepreneurship education was reviewed. Findings – The analysis supports the notions that the launching of a doctoral programme is similar to the process of creating a new business. The results emphasise the importance of the founder’s personality, the network ties among universities and the strategic vision in order to achieve success in an entrepreneurship doctoral programme. Research limitations/implications – The interpretation of findings represents the authors’ perceptions about a single case study. In terms of theory building, as a future research line, a multi-case study approach would allow for the developmental history of several doctoral programmes to be studied and compared. Originality/value – This paper provides a very useful source of information for universities that are planning to offer a doctoral programme in entrepreneurship. Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Education, Europe, Doctorates Paper type Case study
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development Vol. 15 No. 2, 2008 pp. 336-347 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1462-6004 DOI 10.1108/14626000810871718
Introduction Entrepreneurship has emerged over the last two decades as arguably the most potent economic force the world has ever experienced (Birley and Westhead, 1994; White and Reynolds, 1996; Wennekers and Thurik, 1999; Parker, 2004; Minniti and Bygrave, 2004; Kuratko, 2005). With that expansion has come a similar increase in the field of entrepreneurship education (Ronstadt, 1990; Solomon and Fernald, 1991; Gorman et al., 1997; McMullan and Gillin, 2001; Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005; Edwards and Muir, 2005; Fayolle, 2005). In the USA, for example, in 1970 very few universities offered
entrepreneurship courses, but by the early 1980s over 300 universities were reporting courses in entrepreneurship and small business, and by the 1990s that number had grown to 1,050 schools. Today, only in the USA, entrepreneurship education has burgeoned to more than 2,200 courses at over 1,600 schools (Katz, 2003). It is not only a typical phenomenon in the USA; a number of major academic institutions throughout the world have developed programmes in entrepreneurial research (Minniti and Bygrave, 2004; Kuratko, 2005). There are plenty of reasons to help explain this, one of them being that identifying and nurturing potential entrepreneurs throughout the educational process could produce many long-term economic benefits (Hatten and Ruhland, 1995; Hansemark, 1998). In particular, entrepreneurship education could be one of the most effective ways to facilitate the transition of a growing graduate population from education to work (Matlay and Westhead, 2005; Matlay, 2005). Moreover, in the case of the European Union (EU), entrepreneurship education could prepare people to be more responsible, to become entrepreneurs, or entrepreneurial thinkers, and contribute to successfully addressing the entrepreneurial challenge within the EU (Commission of the European Communities, 2006). Consequently, a lower unemployment rate and fewer failures of existing businesses could be achieved. However, although there are a great number of colleges and universities that offer courses related to entrepreneurship across Europe, only a small number of them offer PhD programmes in entrepreneurship so, consequently, few studies are available (Brush et al., 2003). In this context, the EU affirm that “entrepreneurship should be more broadly recognised as a specialisations field for doctoral programmes” (Commission of the European Communities, 2006, p. 10) and “sharing of the best practices should be increased” (Commission of the European Communities, 2006, p. 11). This paper addresses this need by providing an in-depth analysis of a successful doctoral programme in entrepreneurship in Europe. The European Doctoral Programme in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management (EDP) – the case study that is the focus of this paper – was created 20 years ago to develop scholars and promote research in the field of entrepreneurship. EDP is characterised by its international dimension, the promotion of partnership and flexible structure, specific traits that, in general, have been emphasised to identify a successful PhD programme in higher education (UNESCO, 1998). Moreover, the design and launching of the EDP could itself be considered as an example of an entrepreneurial process, understood as the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of business opportunities that result, in this case, in the introduction of new and innovative service and knowledge. In this context, what is the best way to design, launch and organise a successful doctoral programme in entrepreneurship? What are the specific circumstances that explain the success of a doctoral programme in entrepreneurship? These questions constitute the principal objectives of this paper, which, following the recommendations of various authors (Romano, 1989; Pettigrew, 1995; Fleming, 1996; Westhead and Storey, 1996; Vesper and Gartner, 1997; Perren and Ram, 2004; Kuratko, 2005; Matlay, 2005), is based upon a systematic application of a longitudinal case-study approach, from 1999 until 2004. Concerning the structure of the paper, the first section contains a brief review of the literature on entrepreneurship education. In the second section, the research methodology is described. The following section contains the study’s results, and discussion and conclusions are presented afterwards. Finally, the paper concludes with a summary of the practical implications, limitations and suggestions for further research.
Doctoral education
337
JSBED 15,2
338
Conceptual framework Although some early researchers hypothesised that entrepreneurs are less well-educated than the general population (Jacobowith and Vilder, 1982), more recent evidence suggests that people who start businesses have a higher level of education than people who do not (Bowen and Hisrich, 1986; Bates, 1995). Specifically, some authors argue that nascent entrepreneurial success is often a function of business skills in general and relevant entrepreneurship education in particular (Borjas, 2000; Parker, 2004). Consequently, entrepreneurship education has been promoted to encourage entrepreneurial behaviour and research in the field of entrepreneurship education has been developed considerably in recent years (Edwards and Muir, 2005; Fayolle, 2005). In this context, the curricular design for entrepreneurship programmes has been studied as one of the main topics in the related literature. Following this line of research, some authors suggest that an entrepreneurial programme must include skill-building courses in negotiation, leadership, the development of new products, creative thinking and exposure to technological innovation (McMullan and Long, 1987; Vesper and McMullan, 1988). Other authors analyse the teaching methods and recommend the use of computer simulations, behavioural simulations, business plan, consultation with practising entrepreneurs, interviews with entrepreneurs, environmental scans, “live” cases or use of video and films (Gartner and Vesper, 1994; Solomon et al., 1994; Gorman et al., 1997; Hindle, 2002, 2006). Also, some evidence has been accumulated about entrepreneurial learning (Minniti and Bygrave, 2001; Taylor and Thorpe, 2004; Edwards and Muir, 2005) and the evaluation of entrepreneurship education programmes (Donckels, 1991; Carter and Collinson, 1999; McMullan et al., 2002; Kirby, 2003, 2006). Most of these works focus on the entrepreneurship education field at the undergraduate level. However, identifying curricula for the development of doctoral students or suggesting how entrepreneurship doctoral programme might be designed, launched and organised could not only help to increase their effect upon regional development but also to prepare young scholars to be successful contributors in the field of entrepreneurship (Duhaime and Hitt, 2000; Brush et al., 2003). In this context, the well-designed higher education programmes should not be underestimated (Hytti and O’Gorman, 2004; Matlay, 2005). Accordingly, in our case study we shall also take into account the different aspects that could be associated with the necessary processes to develop a successful doctoral programme in entrepreneurship. These include the processes associated with opportunity recognition, exploration and the directors’ ability to exploit these opportunities. Methodology: research design, data collection and analysis As the objectives of our research were to achieve a better understanding about how to implement a successful doctoral programme in entrepreneurship and why a specific programme has success, it was decided that conducting a longitudinal, single case study would be likely to generate the most insight. The advantage of analysing these questions through a case-study approach is that the multiple contextual variables that could influence this contemporary phenomenon could be addressed to a degree not offered by other methods (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). Moreover, according to several qualitative methodologists (Eisenhardt, 1989; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003), an embedded
design can serve as an important device for focusing a single case-study inquiry. Consequently, different units of analysis – global, intermediate and individual – were defined. Concerning the data collection, multiple sources of evidence were gathered over a long period of time in order to improve the study’s validity and reliability (Yin, 2003) (see Table I). Firstly, the EDP as a whole was characterised in terms of their history as a project of a doctoral programme in entrepreneurship. To this end, different secondary data were consulted and diverse interviews were maintained with its founder (three interviews in total, lasting between one and two hours). Secondly, at the intermediate unit of analysis, four deans of different universities were interviewed (many of them on more than one occasion) in order to identify their attitudes and opinions about entrepreneurship doctoral education. Thirdly, students and professors were selected as the smallest subunit of analysis. The data were collected via the administration of a personal questionnaire mailed to a population of students (it was sent in 2003 and produced a response rate of 56 percent), personal interviews to 20 faculty members (lasting 60 to 90 minutes on average) and statistical information. Additionally, a participant observation approach was adopted at different levels of analysis. Specifically, the actual time of participant observation ranged from September 1999 to June 2001. In this period, the researchers of this study were students of the programme and it allowed us to collect different observations during classes and informal meetings and conversations. Finally, following the guidelines of Miles and Huberman (1994) and Yin (2003), data analyses were performed throughout data collection. In particular, to analyse case-study evidence, a time-series analysis was adopted, specifically the compiling of chronological events (Yin, 2003). In addition, in order to assure the construct validity requirements in this phase, before the final version of the case that is presented in this paper, a draft case-study report was reviewed by some key informants.
Level of analysis
Unit of analysis
Global
Founder
Intermediate Deans and directors of departments Individual
Professors and students
Type of source/method of data collection Primary: semi-structured interview and participant observation Secondary: documents Primary: semi-structured interview and participant observation Primary: semi-structured interview, questionnaires and participant observation Secondary: documents and statistical information
Doctoral education
339
Issues/data on History of EDP Background of founder (motivations, personality, studies, etc.) Characteristics of departments and universities Opinions on the topics Characteristics of students Opinions on the topics
Table I. Types of data gathered and types of units being characterised
JSBED 15,2
340
Research findings: the case study The chronological history of EDP has been divided into four phases, each marked by classes of events that differ substantially from those of other time-periods (Yin, 2003): (1) design (pre-launch); (2) launch; (3) leadership changes; and (4) changes in the context and in strategy. Phase 1: 1986/1987-1988/1989: the design (pre-launch) For the year 1986, the founder perceived the necessity to develop scholars in the field to satisfy the future demand for professors. He recognised that there was an opportunity to develop a PhD Programme focused on Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management. With this in mind, he presented the idea in a meeting of the European Council for Small Business (ECSB), where the idea was well received. A committee, which he chaired, was created in the ECSB to develop the proposed project. Considering that, at that time, there was no European University capable of organising a specialised programme in entrepreneurship, the founder established a network of 17 European universities and Business Schools in which there was a distinguished scholar working in the field of entrepreneurship to support and contribute to the Programme. A common curriculum was designed to fill the gap in the study of entrepreneurship in Europe. Specifically, the main objectives were the following: . to offer courses about entrepreneurship, in three main interrelated topics: entrepreneurship and enterprise formation, small business management and development and SMEs in economic and regional development; . to encourage participants to undertake research in the field of entrepreneurship and SMEs, developing common research themes around the world, and . to generate and develop a network among the participants as an international forum for research and education in the field of entrepreneurship. In this respect, the programme content was organised around three levels. The first level included courses related to entrepreneurship and small business management. The second level included methodology courses, and in the third level the course adopted an organisational perspective including topics about different organisational areas. Phase 2: 1989/1990-1992/1993: the launch The original idea was to organise the EDP every year by two universities of the network. In September 1989 the Autonomous University of Barcelona and the Durham University Business School began implementing the EDP. Then, joining Durham University, Copenhagen Business School, Roskilde University and Lund University were active in 1991-1992 and 1992-1993. Moreover, the programme began with 11 professors and without any funds (regular budget). Specifically, the contribution of the professors to the Programme was unremunerated, only the travelling expenses
were covered by Erasmus grants. An initial attempt to collect a small contribution from EDP network universities to finance the promotion of the Programme failed. At this time, the emphasis was placed on the fact that the Programme’s duration was only six months. In this period, the students’ groups met for classes for four hours daily and then continued working to prepare themselves for the next day. After this period, most students returned to their countries and host universities to work on their research proposals and dissertations. Finally, the programme began with 12 students from 8 countries, and in the following academic year the number of students doubled. Phase 3: 1993/1994-1999/2000: leadership change In the third phase of the history of EDP, two important events happened: firstly, a change in the direction of the programme and secondly, the creation of an alumni network. Firstly, in the 1993/1994 academic year, it was decided that the Programme would always be organised by the Autonomous University of Barcelona and Va¨xjo¨ University. Secondly, in order to provide greater leadership to the old students in the organisation of the programme, an alumni network and workshops were established in May 1999. At present, this network provides follow-on activity and serves as a forum for discussing research and academic exchange as well as a vehicle to build and maintain informal contacts among members involved or interested in the entrepreneurship field. Nowadays, some former students who were integrated within the network are professors of the Programme. Other former students have created their own businesses and they are sometimes invited to explain their experiences in different seminars of the Programme. Finally, the number of students that took part in the EDP during this period varied slightly, with an average of ten participants per year. Phase 4: 2000/2001-2004/2005: anticipation of context changes At this time, a transition process in the education context determined two important changes in the organisation of the EDP. Initially, the growing number of doctoral programmes in the different Universities of Europe forced those in charge of the EDP to look for new strategies to attract students. To this end, the board adopted various decisions. Firstly, one of the two Programme directors assumed responsibility for marketing issues. Secondly, the network among new European universities was established and currently the Programme makes up part of the European Doctoral Programmes Association in Management and Business Administration. And, thirdly, to achieve a formalised distinction of quality became one of the most important priorities for the directors, and in June of 2003 the Programme was awarded the “Mention of Quality” from the Spanish Ministry of Education. The second change in the strategy adopted by EDP’s directors was motivated by the transformations concerning the new European Higher Education Area. Specifically, the new situation forced the modification of the EDP structure, and from the 2003/2004 academic year on, the course programme lasts in two years. In particular, the students complete the course credits during the first two years at a
Doctoral education
341
JSBED 15,2
regular doctoral programme pace. The courses offered in the first year are the core subjects. After the participants complete the course credits, the Programme provides two additional years for the students to work on their research. It is common that in these last few years, students return to their countries to work on their dissertation.
342
Discussion and conclusion This longitudinal case study of a doctoral programme in entrepreneurship has showed different evidence that suggests that the process of design and development of a new doctoral programme in entrepreneurship is similar to the process of creating a new business (see Figure 1). In this sense, this case study also confirms that, as in a business, the success of a doctoral programme is influenced by many different factors. In particular, in the foregoing narrative account we have identified four relevant factors: (1) the founder’s personality; (2) networks; (3) entrepreneurial leadership, and (4) a strategy based on internationalisation, quality and anticipation to context changes. Firstly, from the perspective of the founder’s personality, it is interesting to highlight that he seemed to have a personal identification with an entrepreneur based on his alertness and enthusiasm. How the founder discovered the opportunity would conform an example of his alertness. This aspect could be summarised in this sentence: “ . . . because the demand for entrepreneurship courses, programs and research has increased, there has been a need for an increased number of faculty to deliver those courses, administer programs and conduct research in the area”. With respect to enthusiasm, it is interesting to note that different interviews with the founder allowed us to appreciate that the EDP was considered as a personal project. In particular, he explained that he launched the project for his own satisfaction, and he was conscious of the different difficulties such as the financing of the programme. As noted above, the EDP started without regular budget. Secondly, the importance of the networks is another factor to explain the success of the programme. As with the embedded network ties influencing the economic decisions of emerging firms and affecting the role of individual entrepreneurial action on the discovery of opportunities and mobilisation of resources (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000), in the analysed case-study the network ties of the founder facilitated the doctoral programme emergence and growth. In this context, it is interesting to note that, as the results of questionnaires showed, one of the most important strengths of the
Figure 1. EDP creation process
programme was the network ties among different professors and students of diverse European universities. In addition, as noted above, the third objective of the programme was to generate and develop a network among the participants. An example of this is the EDP Alumni network, created in 1999. Thirdly, the change in the leadership that took place during the third phase of the case study allowed management to have greater control over the programme and to plan different strategic plans for the future (Kuratko and Hornsby, 1996; Kuratko, 2005). The majority of deans interviewed maintain this opinion. Fourthly, in the authors’ opinion, how the strategies have been adjusted according to context changes also contributes in explaining the success of the EDP. In particular, we emphasise three critical actions. The first one took place in the first phase (design), and it is related to development of an international network. In this sense, the founder himself anticipated the exigencies of the future, in particular, the present European Higher Education Space (Sorbonne Declaration, 1998) (Allegre et al., 1998). The directors’ strategy of focusing on quality is the second crucial action. To create a quality culture was important in facilitating the credibility of the programme and, consequently, to increase the number of students (these issues were evaluated as very important by the majority of faculty members and students interviewed). Finally, a strategy clearly based on the changing environment reflects the third critical action (for instance, the necessity to develop marketing strategies). In this sense, it could be said that this doctoral programme is characterised by the improvements in the design and development of the course (the product) in order to satisfy the (changing) needs of the potential students (the market). Implications, limitations and future research As has been noted above, this case study confirms that the design and development of a successful doctoral programme in entrepreneurship is similar to the creation process of a new business. Consequently, it is also a complex phenomenon that is influenced by many different factors. This study does, however, highlight some factors as being more important than others, some of which, surprisingly, were not considered by previous researchers about education entrepreneurship. In particular, this study concludes that the following characteristics are those that are important to achieve a successful doctoral programme in entrepreneurship: . an entrepreneurial personality of the founders and directors of the programme; . network ties among universities; . an entrepreneurial leadership; . internationalisation and quality strategy, and . strategic vision in order to anticipate contextual changes. Moreover, in the academic field, various lessons have been extracted from the current research. One of them is that, in the authors’ opinion, there is no single theory that can explain success in a doctoral programme in entrepreneurship creation and development process, but rather a multi-theoretical framework must be developed. This new framework would include the entrepreneurs’ personality factors, network and quality and external environment. Additionally, it is important to stress the importance of informal processes for success of the doctoral programme in
Doctoral education
343
JSBED 15,2
344
entrepreneurship. The findings here, largely, support Vesper and Gartner (1997), who found that different criteria could serve to test the success in an educational programme, such as leadership or strategic and operational planning. On the other hand, this case study can be useful for governments, especially for education policy-makers. In particular, it is important to note that doctoral programmes in entrepreneurship are a topic in entrepreneurship education where institutional policy can be manifested in practical terms. For instance, this research suggests that a support system in order to foster new business based on entrepreneurship education could consist of facilitating the international approach and the creation of network ties among European universities. At the same time, this case study is an example of good practice in the doctoral education in the entrepreneurship context, and it could be useful to the European institutions in order to disseminate a role model to design and launch new doctoral programmes. Finally, there are, no doubt, some limitations in this research. Specifically, the main limitation of this study is that it is based on a single case study. However, the case-study approach does not suggest that the findings can be generalised across all contexts. Rather, the purpose of this paper is to generalise theoretically and to understand the significance of processes in action (Yin, 2003). In other words, our purpose is to develop theory through the analysis of the single case, using it not to discover anything about it as a system, but rather as an empirical basis either for generalisation or theory construction. On the other hand, nevertheless, in terms of theory building, we believe that there is still a long way to go to develop sufficiently broad-based theoretical frameworks to illustrate this diversity suitably. In this respect, we feel that a multi-case study approach in future research would allow the developmental history of several doctoral programmes in entrepreneurship to be studied and compared. Additionally, other research could be conducted using quantitative approaches to test the finding of this study. In any case, it is the authors’ conviction that a longitudinal and dynamic approach, such as that studied here, offers a useful basis for the development of such an integrative theory. References Allegre, C., Berlinguer, L., Blackstone, T. and Ru¨ttgers, J. (1998), Sorbonne Joint Declaration, Paris, 25 May, available at: www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Sorbonne_declaration.pdf Bates, T. (1995), “Self-employment entry across industry groups”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10, pp. 143-56. Birley, S. and Westhead, P. (1994), “A taxonomy of business start–up reasons and their impact on firm growth and size”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, pp. 7-31. Borjas, G.J. (2000), Labour Economics, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. Bowen, D.D. and Hisrich, R.D. (1986), “The female entrepreneur: A career development perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 393-407. Brush, C.G., Duhaime, I.M., Gartner, W.B., Stewart, A., Katz, J.A., Hitt, M.A., Alvarez, S.A., Meyer, G.D. and Venkataramn, S. (2003), “Doctoral education in the field of entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 309-31. Carter, S. and Collinson, E. (1999), “Entrepreneurship education: alumni perceptions of the role of higher education institutions”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 229-39.
Commission of the European Communities (2006), Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: Fostering Entrepreneurial Mindsets through Education and Learning, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels. Donckels, R. (1991), “Education and entrepreneurship experiences from secondary and university education in Belgium”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-42. Duhaime, I.M. and Hitt, M.A. (2000), “State of doctoral education in entrepreneurship”, Research Reports online, available at: http://robinson.gsu.edu/rec/papers/paper3.doc Edwards, L.J. and Muir, E.J. (2005), “Promoting entrepreneurship at the University of Glamorgan through formal and informal learning”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 613-26. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50. Fayolle, A. (2005), “Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: behaviour performing or intention increasing?”, International Journal Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 89-98. Fleming, P. (1996), “Entrepreneurial education in Ireland: a longitudinal study”, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 95-119. Gartner, W.B. and Vesper, K.H. (1994), “Experiments in entrepreneurship education: success and failures”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 179-87. Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), “Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education, and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 56-77. Hansemark, O. (1998), “The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on need for achievement and locus of control of reinforcement”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour and Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 28-50. Hatten, T. and Ruhland, S. (1995), “Student attitudes toward entrepreneurship as affected by participation in an SBI program”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 224-7. Hindle, K. (2002), “A grounded theory for teaching entrepreneurship using simulation games”, Simulation and Gaming, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 236-42. Hindle, K. (2006), “Teaching entrepreneurship at university: from the wrong building to the right philosophy”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004), “What is ‘enterprise education’? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries”, Education þ Training, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 11-23. Jacobowith, A. and Vilder, D. (1982), “Characteristics of entrepreneurs: implications for vocational guidance”, Vocational Guidance Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 252-7. Katz, J.A. (2003), “The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 283-300. Kirby, D.A. (2003), “Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?”, in Genesca, E., Urbano, D, Capelleras, J.L., Guallarte, C. and Verges, J. (Eds), Entrepreneurship: Homage to Professor J.M. Veciana Verges, Manuals Economy, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona. Kirby, D.A. (2006), “Entrepreneurship education: changing the paradigm”, in Fayolle, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Edward Elgar, London.
Doctoral education
345
JSBED 15,2
346
Kuratko, D.F. (2005), “The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends and challenges”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, September, pp. 577-97. Kuratko, D.F. and Hornsby, J.S. (1996), “Developing entrepreneurial leadership in contemporary organizations”, Journal of Management Systems, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 17-27. McMullan, W.E. and Gillin, L.M. (2001), “Entrepreneurship education in the nineties, revisited”, in Brockhaus, R.H., Hills, G.E., Klandt, H. and Welch, H.P. (Eds), Entrepreneurship Education: A Global View, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 57-77. McMullan, W.E. and Long, W.A. (1987), “Entrepreneurship education in the nineties”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2, pp. 261-75. McMullan, W.E., Chrisman, J.J. and Vesper, K.H. (2002), “Lessons from successful innovations in entrepreneurial support programming”, in Chrisman, J.J., Holbrook, J.A.D. and Chua, J.H. (Eds), Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Western Canada: From Family Businesses to Multinationals, University of Calgary Press, Calgary. Matlay, H. (2005), “Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual and policy considerations”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 627-43. Matlay, H. and Westhead, P. (2005), “Virtual teams and the rise of e-entrepreneurship in Europe”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 353-65. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage Publications, London. Minniti, M. and Bygrave, W. (2001), “A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 5-16. Minniti, M. and Bygrave, W.D. (2004), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Kansas City, MO. Parker, S.C. (2004), The Economics of Self Employment and Entrepreneurship, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Perren, L. and Ram, M. (2004), “Case- study method in small business and entrepreneurial research”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 83-101. Pettigrew, A.M. (1995), “Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice”, in Huber, G.P. and Van de Ven, A.H. (Eds), Longitudinal Field Research Methods: Studying Processes of Organizational Change, Sage, London. Romano, C. (1989), “Research strategies for small business: a case study approach”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 35-43. Ronstadt, R. (1990), “The educated entrepreneurs: a new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning”, in Kent, C.A. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship Education, Quorum Books, New York, NY, pp. 69-88. Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 217-26. Solomon, G.T. and Fernald, L.W. (1991), “Trends in small business management and entrepreneurship education in the United States”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 25-39. Solomon, G.T., Weaver, K.M. and Fernald, L.W. (1994), “Pedagogical methods of teaching entrepreneurship: a historical perspective”, Simulation and Gaming, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 338-53. Stake, R.E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Taylor, D.W. and Thorpe, R. (2004), “Entrepreneurial learning: a process of co-participation”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-11. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (1998), World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-first Century: Vision and Action, UNESCO, Paris. Vesper, K.H. and Gartner, W.B. (1997), “Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 403-21. Vesper, K.H. and McMullan, W.E. (1988), “Entrepreneurship: today courses, tomorrow degrees?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 7-13. Wennekers, S. and Thurik, R. (1999), “Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 27-55. Westhead, P. and Storey, D.J. (1996), “Management training and small firm performance: why is the link so weak?”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 13-24. White, S.B. and Reynolds, P.D. (1996), “Government programs and high growth new firms”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Babson Park, MA. Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Further reading Cresswell, C.A. (1999), “A review of enterprise education in universities”, Welsh Enterprise Institute Report, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd. Henry, C., Hill, F.M. and Leitch, C.M. (2004), “The effectiveness of training for new business creation: a longitudinal study”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 249-71. Kuratko, D.F. and Welsch, H.P. (2004), Strategic Entrepreneurial Growth, 2nd ed., South-Western College Publishers, Mason, OH. Corresponding author David Urbano can be contacted at:
[email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Doctoral education
347
