Insights from an international perspective on entrepreneurship education

Entrepreneurship can be an important source of value creation and we believe that social justice can be achieved through its application. Entrepreneurship is also highly contextual. The process of how, by whom, and with what consequences business opportunities based on future products and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited is shaped by the level of development of the economy and the cultural context in which it occurs (Potter, 2008).

For example, we know that entrepreneurship in developing and transition countries is qualitatively diff erent from entrepreneurship in developed countries. Three different economic and cultural contexts that shape entrepreneurship can be observed: (1) the liberal system, in which the market mechanism is the best way to shape and maintain economic and social justice (that is, the US economy); (2) the cooperative system, in which the state plays an important role in redistributing wealth while the market is a priori not eff ective enough to do so (France is a case in point); (3) the informal system, in which neither the state or the regulated market can create wealth and social justice. Wealth and justice is created locally and based on affi liation to social groups (for example, many African countries). The three contexts we have briefl y described above are likely to shape entrepreneurship diff erently. Therefore, entrepreneurship cannot be understood as a one- dimensional concept. It is a concept based on the acts of many that adds to large macroeconomic eff ects.

These diff erent visions of the world and how entrepreneurship can function as a positive force have an impact on the way entrepreneurship can be taught and people can be educated in the fi eld of entrepreneurship. Our conviction is that research in entrepreneurship education should focus more on this perspective. For this third volume of the Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education we have assembled 17 empirical and conceptual research chapters which address issues and questions in relation to education and training in these diff erent economic and cultural contexts, paying attention to how each particular context shapes entrepreneurship education. We have also tried to emphasize how we can learn and improve our own practices from each of these international views. To achieve this objective, we have structured the book into four parts. Each part addresses a key entrepreneurship education learning issue in relation to methods, diff erences, minorities and institutional cultures. We present below the four parts of the book and the 17 chapters which have been included.

How can we learn from methods?
We know the importance of methods in entrepreneurship education (Carrier, 2007; Fayolle, 2008; Harrison and Leitch, 2008; Smith et al., 2008), but sometimes educators and teachers are implicitly or explicitly talking about (or looking for) the magic method which turns each and every individual into a successful entrepreneur. There is no magic method, only methods which are more or less well adapted to a set of factors such as the pedagogical objectives, the characteristics of the audiences, the institutional, cultural and organizational constraints (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008).

By ‘methods’ here we mean both pedagogical approaches such as simulation, case studies and entrepreneurs in the classroom, and conceptual approaches to evaluating a key entrepreneurship dimension (entrepreneurial competence in our case). We have four chapters in the first part of the book, the three former are centered on particular pedagogical approaches while the later focuses on assessing entrepreneurial competence in entrepreneurship education.

‘Using simulation to develop empathy and motivate agency: an innovative pedagogical approach for social entrepreneurship education’, is the result of research from Brett R. Smith, Jill Kickul and Linda Coley. In this chapter, one of the departure points is that both scholars and practitioners agree one of most important foundational skills for a social entrepreneur is empathy. Consequently, the authors examine how the pedagogical use of a simulation may contribute to the development of empathy and social entrepreneurship education. Qualitative fi ndings suggest the use of a simulation may be a useful tool for inclusion in social entrepreneurship pedagogy and may off er students the opportunity to engage in experiential learning of key theoretical constructs. While the fi eld of social entrepreneurship continues to grow,1 a lot of issues and challenges remain concerning the education and training of social entrepreneurs, who pursue qualitatively diff erent forms of opportunities compared to ‘traditional’ entrepreneurs.

‘The creative industries and entrepreneurship education: the potential contribution of student- oriented case studies’. The main objective of this chapter is to illustrate the value and the impact of the case method in entrepreneurship education and training. The particular reference taken for this work is the creative industries, an economic sector which encompasses many diff erent segments and niches. The chapter highlights the potential this sector represents for developing attractive, new style, case material, with all the cultural and personality infl uences that come into play with creative industries.

The author describes her experience on the creation and use of a series of creative industries case studies in examination sessions and the classroom. She draws conclusions from primary research undertaken with nine cohorts, in relation to the eff ectiveness of the case assessment process in end- of- term examinations. As practical implications, the author suggests that educators and trainers should undertake more classroom research on the particular roles that case studies can play within their pedagogical processes. She also encourages further educationoriented research in the creative industries as this sector has many, untapped, research opportunities to illustrate exciting examples of entrepreneurship and innovation.

‘Hunting the entrepreneurial expertise: entrepreneurs in education’ is proposed by Per Blenker and Poul Rind Christensen. We regularly hear about the practical expertise possessed by entrepreneurs and the usefulness and the richness of their insights in the context of education and training. Therefore, the inclusions of entrepreneurs as teachers in entrepreneurship education is widely recommended and expanding. In this chapter, the authors discuss and reveal the experience- based expertise brought by entrepreneurs in light of the diff erent purposes and diff erent ways entrepreneurs can be included in teaching programs. This research is a fi rst step and off ers a preliminary framework to answer the key question: How can we maximize the implication and the pedagogical contribution of diff erent types of entrepreneurs in diff erent types of educational settings?

‘Assessing entrepreneurial competence in entrepreneurship education and training’. Based on an education science point of view, the authors suggest that the last three decades have denoted a change in perspectives on the role and design of individual educational assessments: from being ‘assessments of learning’ towards ‘assessments for learning’, and the transition from a testing culture towards an assessment culture. Along with differentiating views on entrepreneurship it is argued in this work that entrepreneurship education asks for learning- oriented assessments that recognize the heterogeneity of the participants as well as the entrepreneurship contexts.

These assessments should allow participants to identify and understand the crucial aspects of entrepreneurship in their context, should off er them opportunities to show what they already can do and find out what aspects they can or should develop in the future in order to become (more) successful entrepreneurs in their professional context. Accordingly, the initial steps for developing such an assessment for an entrepreneurship training are described, along with three potential adjacent research areas for entrepreneurship education/training researchers.
Read More : Insights from an international perspective on entrepreneurship education

The role of empathy in social entrepreneurship

While commercial and social entrepreneurship have much in common, one of the most important differences is the nature of the entrepreneurial opportunity (Austin et al., 2006). Whereas commercial entrepreneurial opportunities are focused on the creation of economic value, social entrepreneurship opportunities are focused on the creation of social value – that is, some form of societal improvement.

As a result, the decision process for prospective commercial and social entrepreneurs is likely to be infl uenced by diff erent factors. In developing a theory of entrepreneurial action, McMullen and Shepherd (2006) explain the decision to act upon identified entrepreneurial opportunities is a function of the feasibility and desirability of exploitation. Assuming feasibility is constant across both types of opportunities, the desirability of pursuing a commercial opportunity or a social opportunity may also differ.

While recognizing desirability may occur for a number of reasons (for example, Cyert and March, 1963), one important consideration in the commercial entrepreneur’s decision making processes is the fi nancial impact. By comparison, a primary motivator for the prospective social entrepreneur is social value creation for the marginalized. But, why are prospective social entrepreneurs drawn to the marginalized? For centuries, the role of emotion in prosocial human action has been studied (for a brief review, see Eisenberg and Miller, 1987). While there is some debate about whether action is pursued for altruistic or egoistic reasons,1 psychologists generally agree that empathy is a major determinant of prosocial behavior in a wide range of contexts (cf Batson and Coke, 1981; Davis, 1980; Hoff man, 1984).

Empathy is defined as ‘an aff ective state that stems from the comprehension of another’s emotional state or condition, and that is congruent with it’ (Eisenberg and Miller, 1987, p. 91). In developing theoretical paths to helping behavior, Batson (1987) developed three paths by which prosocial behavior may occur. The fi rst two paths suggest egoistic motivations for helping behavior (termed reward seeking/punishment avoiding motivation and arousal reducing egoistic motivation). The third path departed from the traditional approach which viewed all intentional action as egoistic and instead presented a path where prosocial behavior occurred for altruistic motivation. This third model, termed empathetically evoked altruistic motivation, off ered a theoretical model linking empathy to prosocial behavior.

Given the increasing empirical evidence supporting the empathy- altruism hypothesis (for example, Batson and Shaw, 1991), we focus on this third path as one possible explanation for engaging social entrepreneurship. According to the model, a precipitating or instigating situation leads a person to begin to adopt the perspective of another. The perspective- taking of another is often related to one’s own self- perspective or the perspective about another’s perceived reaction to similar situations (Batson, 1991). Often, adoption of the perspective of another person takes place in times of trouble or during personal distress of another. As such, the identifi cation with another’s distress leads to a vicarious emotional response of empathy.

This empathetic response may be induced by prior experience in similar situations or a feeling of attachment to the other person (Batson, 1991; Lee and Holden, 1999); and it is related to the magnitude of the other person’s need and the strength of attachment to the other. This attachment can occur for a number of reasons including perceived similarity as well as attractiveness. In turn, this emotion- matching leads to an altruistic motivation to help another.

The basic premise of this hypothesis is that the suff ering of another leads an individual to seek to reduce suff ering for that other not for personal reasons but for altruistic reasons. The arousal of the motivational state leads the individual to embark on a hedonic calculus of the cost–benefi t analysis of helping behavior. The cost–benefi t analysis compares the magnitude of the suff ering of another with the cost associated with engaging in behavior that will reduce or eliminate the suff ering of the other. Such costs may be physical, mental, social, political or financial.

Finally, when the benefi ts outweigh the costs, the individual engages in helping behavior. Such helping behavior is thought to occur ‘if: 1.) helping is possible; 2.) the relative benefi t of helping is perceived to be positive; and 3.) the relative benefi t of helping is perceived to be more positive than the relative benefi t of having someone else help’ (Batson and Shaw, 1991). The empathy–altruism–prosocial behavior model provides an excellent theoretical explanation to understand the decision- making process of a social entrepreneur. While there may be no personal gain (fi nancial or otherwise) for the social entrepreneur, the opportunity to assist another in need represents an important foundation from which to build a theory that explains the motivations of the social entrepreneur. Given its potential importance, we now examine how the model itself may be useful for social entrepreneurship education.
Read More : The role of empathy in social entrepreneurship

The role of simulation in social entrepreneurship pedagogy

Given its infancy, the fi eld of social entrepreneurship education is still developing. To begin to educate students about social entrepreneurship, several pedagogical approaches have been suggested (see Brock et al., 2008). However, one important approach that has been overlooked is the use of a simulation. One possible reason for this neglect is that the relative infancy of the fi eld suggests that simulations specifi c to the domain may not yet have been developed. While this might be the case, it may be possible to draw upon simulations used in other fi elds to specifi cally address some of the most salient issues in the field of social entrepreneurship. One such simulation is Star- Power which has been used in a number of fi elds including management for more than three decades.

The purpose of Star- Power as a pedagogical tool is to combine the increased interest, involvement and enthusiasm of simulations, rooted in realism and face validity, with the broader experiential learning  environment (Keys and Wolfe, 1990; Kinnear and Klammer, 1987; McGrath, 1982) in which social entrepreneurship is embedded. According to the director’s instructions, Star- Power is:

A game in which a low- mobility, three tiered society is built through the distribution of wealth
in the form of chips. Once established, the group with the most wealth is given the power to
make the rules of the game. Almost without exception, they make rules which secure and
enhance their position of power. The other two groups generally consider these rules to be
unfair and often label them dictatorial, fascist or racist. Sometimes, there is an open revolt
against the top group, other times the other two groups give up and drop out. When the frustration
and confl ict reaches a certain level, the director ends the game. The experience is then
analyzed and discussed. (Shirts, 1993: 3)

The Star- Power simulation: an overview

In the simulation, students blindly select diff erent colored chips out of a bag that contains a random assortment of diff erent colored chips. The chips each have diff erent point values attached to the color of the chip. The creation of the three tiers occurs as students engage in two rounds of trading chips with other members of the class period based on pre- specifi ed rules. After the fi rst round of trading, the students are divided into three groups based upon the total point value of their fi ve most valuable chips. Each group is then provided buttons which are worn during the balance of the game.2 At the end of each trading session, each group is given three bonus chips which are allocated to individuals within their group based upon a vote from the members.

Then, points are totaled again and adjustments between tiers are made if necessary. Then, students draw chips again but this time the bags of chips provided to each of the three groups are biased with the highest group drawing from a bag containing the majority of higher value chips. After this biased drawing, a second round of trading occurs followed by a second round of awarding of bonus chips. Following this second round of trading, the group of students with the highest scores is given the power to make rules for all subsequent rounds of trading.

To increase the eff ectiveness of the Star- Power simulation, it is important to provide an opportunity for students to refl ect upon their experiences and to share these experiences with the entire class. Following the in class simulation (which can be completed in approximately 75 minutes), the students are given an assignment to write a refl ection paper for the next class session that addresses two questions:

1. How did you feel during the Star- Power simulation?
2. Why did we use this simulation in a social entrepreneurship course?

When the students return for the next class session, the entire discussion is focused around these two questions. The fi rst question addresses issues related to the emotional aspects of the diff erent groups and how these emotions motivated action. By allowing students to hear the experiences from each of the groups, they gain a broader sense of how the emotions may have differed based upon the group in which the student was located and how these emotions impacted individual action and group decision- making. The second question is used to link the learning experience of the simulation with important constructs in social entrepreneurship.
Read More : The role of simulation in social entrepreneurship pedagogy