Mid-way proposal
Entrepreneurship in a wider societal context
- The example of introduction in the school setting
PhD Student Karin Axelsson
School of Innovation, Design & Engineering
Mid-way seminar 2015-06-10
Discussant: Linda Höglund, PhD, Örebro University
Supervisors: Yvonne Eriksson, Professor, Mälardalen University and Maria
Mårtensson Hansson, Associate professor, Stockholm University
Table of contents
1.Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Outline of the mid-way proposal ........................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Problem statement, research aim and objective ................................................................................ 5
1.4 Research questions.............................................................................................................................. 7
1.5 Scope and contributions...................................................................................................................... 8
2. Entrepreneurship and school .................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Entrepreneurship ................................................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Societal entrepreneurship ................................................................................................................. 13
2.3. Entrepreneurship education ............................................................................................................ 14
2.4. Learning ............................................................................................................................................ 18
3. Method and research considerations ..................................................................................................... 21
4. Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
5. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 32
6. References ............................................................................................................................................... 39
7. Appended papers .................................................................................................................................... 48
1.Introduction
My research journey turned out to become a search for an “old” phenomena placed in a new societal
environment. It is about entrepreneurship in the school setting. The aim is to deepen the knowledge of
this phenomenon. My research is evolving around what has happened when entrepreneurship is
introduced in the school context framed in two research questions concerning what is entrepreneurship
in a school setting characterised of and are there any initial perceived insights of the introduction. This is
investigated on a more comprehensive level within all school ages however more in depth in preschool
and lower secondary school. In some sense the research also became a search for a common thread. In
2009 the Ministry of Education of research and the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation launched a
strategy for introducing entrepreneurship within education, with the goal that entrepreneurship would
run like a “red thread” throughout the educational system (Government Offices of Sweden, 2009). To me
this is intriguing. It reminds me of a children’s book I read when I was a child and which I also have read
for my own children. The book is the ‘history of somebody’ where you follow a red ball of thread which
brings you through a series of occurrences, triggering your curiosity in the search of what has happened
and what will happen next. In this case curiosity did not kill the cat, and the story reveals who is involved
but ends with an invitation - if you want to know more, ask. This is what research is about, asking
questions and trying to the best of your knowledge and ability to find some kind of new understanding.
Hitherto there has been an expedition of discoveries. As a metaphor in a political strategy the talk of a
thread sounds explicit. However in theory of entrepreneurship and when introduced in practice neither
the launch of entrepreneurship in the school setting or the thread as such is as clear. Not even when cut
into bits and pieces.
This mid-way seminar text is a living document caught in the midst of a research development. The
presented text is a staging post on the road to a forthcoming compilation thesis. However, not being at
that point yet, this midway seminar text is a way of presenting my research so far with tentative results
and insights.
1.1 Background
Entrepreneurship has during the last decades gained immense interest on a wide front. The
development is obvious both in academic theory, politics and practice. It has been described as a
solution to economic as well as social challenges, as a means to achieve prosperity and a help for
countries to win the economic battle for shares of the world market within today’s market economy.
(Hansemark, 1998; Kuratko, 2005). Since entrepreneurships often is linked to the creation of companies
and self- employment it is also seen as something that can affect inhabitants’ possibilities to make a
living.
It has been claimed that some people are natural entrepreneurs by birth with inborn traits and
researchers such as McClelland (1961) and Hagen (1962) amongst others have tried to find these and link
specific entrepreneurial characteristics to an entrepreneurial behaviour. This has however been proven
somewhat difficult (Brockhaus, 1982) and the search for the entrepreneurial gene essentially has been
abandoned. Today’s view of entrepreneurship is mainly based in management theories (Landström,
Harrichi & Åström, 2012) viewing entrepreneurship as a process (e.g. Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Rae &
Carswell, 2000; Cope, 2005; Landström & Benner, 2010). And if acknowledging entrepreneurship as a
behavioural circumstance (even if not inherited) and a process which also can be learned as do Drucker
(1985) and Carrier (2005) this opens up for a different kind of societal development. Anyone can in
theory become an entrepreneur by learning and exercising the necessary knowledge and skills. These
notions fits well with the political need of more entrepreneurial people everywhere in society who see
change as the natural state (Johannisson, 2010; Berglund, Johannisson & Schwartz, 2012). To accomplish
this entrepreneurship will move into new societal contexts affecting our everyday life, a development
recognised by scholars such as Steyaert and Katz (2004) and Hjorth (2012). They bring forth some issues
and challenges with this progression. For one, when broadening the use of the multidisciplinary
entrepreneurship concept which is already challenged for its lack of common understanding it will be put
to further testing. When entrepreneurship no longer is limited to the business sector (Mahieu, 2006) this
pushes a need to be understand it beyond this economic or “businesslike” meaning. (Gibb, 2005, p.46).
Also, Steyaert and Katz (2004) as well as Leffler (2006) and Mühlenbock (2004) argue that when placed in
other parts of society there are potential risk with using economic rhetoric and views since this can
undermine its possibilities, implementations and legitimacy.
Notwithstanding, as a way of achieving the emergence of entrepreneurial inhabitants on a broader scale
entrepreneurship by political ambitions has entered the school setting (Berglund et al., 2012). It provides
a natural environment for education about, in and for entrepreneurship (Henry, Hill & Leitch, 2005) and
the possibility of developing and exercising entrepreneurial skills (Axelsson, Hägglund & Sandberg, 2015).
This setting is also of interest since childhood and adolescence are thought to be the most appropriate
2
age groups for acquiring positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003), and
children even as young as those attending preschools, according to a study by Lindström (2013), can
adopt an entrepreneurial approach. School also offers an opportunity to reach a quantity of people.
Therefore it is not surprising that there are numerous educational initiatives all over the world seeking to
stimulate entrepreneurship and create prerequisites for entrepreneurial behaviour (Gibb, 1993;
Komulainen, Naskali, Korhonen & Keskitalo-Foley., 2011; Raposo & Do Paço, 2011; Seikkula-Leino, 2011)
and accordingly entrepreneurship education is exploding (Kuratko, 2005; Johansen & Schanke, 2012;
Fayolle, 2013). Sweden is no exception and in 2009 the government introduced a strategy for
entrepreneurship in education in which they stated that entrepreneurship would run like a common
thread throughout the educational system. The idea was to help pupils develop entrepreneurial
competences that could be helpful both during education and afterwards both in their private and
working life. The introduction has not only been simple and research has shown that teachers are
reluctant to the term entrepreneurship, rather preferring enterprising / internal entrepreneurship
(Backström-Widjeskog, 2008; Leffler, 2009; Komulainen et al., 2011, Korhonen, Komulainen & Räty,
2012). Its inherited business-like connotations (Gibb, 2002; Lackéus, 2013) with a focus on business
development, start-ups and value-creation in an economic sense also create hinders.
When entrepreneurship enters new societal contexts the complexity intensifies and new questions arise.
Therefore there is a need for more knowledge and understanding regarding entrepreneurship as a
phenomenon within education. Existing studies of entrepreneurship education have primarily been
conducted towards the university level (Gorman, Hanlon & King, 1997; Byrne, Fayolle & Toutain, 2014)
with some contributions directed towards the upper secondary level (Frank et al., 2005; Svedberg, 2007;
Anderson, Drakopoulou Dodd & Jack, 2009). However fewer studies focus on primary school or the lower
secondary school context. In addition, Fayolle (2013) suggests a number of issues that needs to be
addressed regarding entrepreneurship education, amongst others that researchers should reflect on
practice and investigate what we are talking about and what practice actually do when it comes to
entrepreneurship education.
There has been research contributing to the understanding of how an entrepreneur, often an business
owner, learn in his or her often small or medium sized and newly started company (Deakins & Freel,
1998; Cope & Watts, 2000; Rae, 2000; Cope, 2005) and entrepreneurial processes in this setting.
However, more recently voices are raised upon a need for further research in the overlapping areas of
entrepreneurship and learning, asking for further insights in the relatively underexplored field of
3
entrepreneurial learning (Ravasi & Turati, 2005) and more knowledge on entrepreneurship in relation to
learning processes (Politis, 2005). Also research on entrepreneurship and learning within the school
environment seems according to Leffler (2006) and Mueller (2012) more limited. Adding to this
Komulainen et al. (2011) want to see further research on the meaning on entrepreneurship education in
different educational contexts, and Fayolle (2013) requests research focusing on the pedagogical and/or
educational issues within the field of entrepreneurship.
To sum up, this reveals a need for discussing and conduct further research on entrepreneurship and
enterprise education in the school setting as proposed by researchers such as Leffler (2006), Mueller
(2012) and Fayolle (2013). Also further research in the intersection of entrepreneurship and learning and
entrepreneurship in relation to learning (Ravasi & Turtai, 2005; Politis, 2005; Fayolle, 2013). As Leffler
(2014) states the research on enterprise learning is considered being in its early stages. Furthermore, the
phenomenon entrepreneurship in a school setting also attract interests among scholars focusing on
entrepreneurship as a societal phenomenon such as Steyaert and Katz (2004), Berglund et al. (2012) and
Hjorth (2012). This research can be seen as an attempt to answer some of these requests.
1.2 Outline of the mid-way proposal
Within two years my goal is to present a compilation thesis which is planned to consist of four to five
articles (which is to be decided with my supervisors) and a summarising chapter (kappa). The
summarising chapter will integrate the different articles and discuss their contribution and relevance for
the aim and underlying research questions in the thesis. However, not being at that point yet this
midway seminar text is a way of present my research so far. My two articles and the report completed
hitherto is appended. Their titles1 are “ Introducing Entrepreneurship in a School Setting –
Entrepreneurial Learning as the Entrance ticket“, “Entrepreneurial Learning in Education- Preschool as a
1
“Introducing Entrepreneurship in a School Setting – Entrepreneurial Learning as the Entrance ticket“, has been
published in the Journal of Education and Training. “Entrepreneurial Learning in Education- Preschool as a take-off
for the entrepreneurial self” is to be presented at the 8th ICEIRD conference in June 2015. The “En analys av
Skolverkets satsning på utvecklingsmedel för entreprenörskap i skolan”, is to be rewritten into an article, and an
abstract is submitted to the XXIX RENT conference in November 2015.
4
take-off for the entrepreneurial self” and “En analys av Skolverkets satsning på utvecklingsmedel för
entreprenörskap i skolan”.
This mid-way proposal is structured in five chapters. In this introducing chapter I will describe the
background and clarify the problem which motivates my research focus. Also outline my research
questions, aim, objective, scope and delimitations of the conducted research. In chapter two I will
present some theories on and previous research within mainly entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship
education and learning relevant for my present research position. The third chapter present my methods
and some research considerations. In the following chapter I present my results, before the discussion in
chapter five. In this last chapter I also reflect over the fulfilment of the aim and objective and my ability
to answer the research questions. I also describe the research’s contribution and propose my suggested
future research work.
1.3 Problem statement, research aim and objective
As stated in the background section entrepreneurship is a hot topic in which both academia, government
and industry take an interest. The development during last decades has involved a movement where
entrepreneurship from its origin within economics and with focus on business has evolved and expanded
into other sectors of society. This societal entrepreneurship development are recognised by scholars
such as Steyaert and Katz (2004), Berglund et al. (2012) and Hjorth (2012). Accordingly the already
questioned and multifaceted concept of entrepreneurship face further testing. With new territory comes
new aspects and challenges to be considered and new questions needs to be raised.
Politicians strive for national prosperity and industry for growth and shares of the world market. In the
prevailing market economy both these parties have an interest in the well-being of active, innovative and
entrepreneurial citizens both as employees and new business owners. An ongoing discussion is therefore
how to ensure the “supply” of these people for future needs. A way of reaching people on a massive
scale is through education. Also, research has shown that school provides a natural environment for
education about, in and for entrepreneurship (Henry et al., 2005). Hence, not surprisingly, a new societal
area where entrepreneurship turns up is within the school setting. Consequently, as previously
mentioned, we can see a lot of initiatives connecting entrepreneurship to education by stimulating
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activities in schools in hope to change pupils’ mind-set, help them
acquire entrepreneurial skills and in some cases start-up new companies (Gibb, 1993; Komulainen et al.,
2011; Raposo & Do Paço, 2011; Seikkula-Leino, 2011).
5
In Sweden this evolution started inter alia by inspiration from an OECD report (OECD, 1989) raising the
need of an enterprising culture and pushing for young peoples need to practice and develop
entrepreneurial skills. Also the European initiative (European Communities, 2007) suggesting eight key
competences the modern and active learning citizen need to acquire, whereof entrepreneurship was
pointed out as one, pushed the development. In 2009 the Swedish Government launched a strategy for
entrepreneurship in education (Government Offices of Sweden, 2009) with the bearing notion that
entrepreneurship should run like a common thread throughout the educational system. This paved the
way for a change in this direction within the national curriculums in 2010 and 2011. (The Swedish
National Agency for Education, 2010; 2011; 2013).
However, when entrepreneurship enters school complexity increases and it has to deal with questions of
meaning, legitimacy, language, culture, content and implementation (e.g. Steyaert & Katz, 2004; Leffler,
2006; Mühlenbock, 2004). First of all there is the challenge of understanding the phenomenon
entrepreneurship itself within the school setting, what it is and is supposed to become. At the time for
the launch and implementation of the strategy teachers were not fully prepared to adopt and embrace
the concept and there were different ideas on what it was and why this should be implemented and how
(Axelsson, 2013). The purpose, goal and meaning with the introduction of entrepreneurship was not
either entirely clear. Further, since Swedish teacher training generally do not include knowledge of
entrepreneurship or for instance how to teach entrepreneurial competences many teachers themselves
lack theoretical knowledge. Also it is probably not bold to say that the majority of the teachers do not
have any previous practical experience of working with or as entrepreneurs either.
This is a dilemma since teachers, according to Korhonen, et al. (2012) and Sagar (2013), play the most
important role in the process of transforming entrepreneurship education in teaching practice and
learning outcomes. They also have the most important influence on students’ interests at school (Hattie,
2009) and they strongly affect how and to what extent the curriculum is implemented (Sharma &
Anderson, 2007). Therefore teachers’ views on and attitude towards entrepreneurship affect
implementation and legitimacy. Research show there are two competing discourses of entrepreneurship
in the school environment. One more narrow business definition connected to growth and value
creation (Gibb, 2002; Lackéus, 2013) and another broader definition with focus on pupils and learning
(Leffler, 2009). Prior research show for instance that if viewing an entrepreneur as an individualistic hero,
greedily taking advantage of other people, this may place obstacles in the way of implementing
entrepreneurship at school (Berglund & Holmgren, 2006) while entrepreneurship as a collective form is
6
tolerated to a greater extent (Mühlenbock, 2004). All in all, teachers are more reluctant to teaching
entrepreneurship/external entrepreneurship with a business focus and prefer an enterprising/internal
approach to with softer connotations focusing on learning, competences, individual development
(Leffler, 2006; Backström-Widjeskog, 2008; Korhonen et al. 2012). This hesitation could be seen as both
good and bad, depending on one’s perspective. Entrepreneurship as such has commonly been
considered something good (Berglund and Holmgren, 2008). It is hard to be against because of many
positive associations and expectations. But there are also possible risks with this development that
schoolchildren on all levels are supposed to become entrepreneurial and enterprising. It is presented as
a possibility equally obtainable for all (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2008), but du Gay (1995) is not totally
convinced, instead he points out a risk of marginalisation and exclusion of people not able to behave
entrepreneurial. Also the responsibility of becoming employable is further transferred to the individual
(Vandenbroeck, 2007) adding more personal pressure.
Since this is a new development both in the Swedish society at large as well as for each and every school
as such there is a need for understanding more about the phenomenon entrepreneurship in relation to
education. This research is an attempt to relate to some of the challenges which I have gone through in
the previous paragraphs. Therefore the aim is to generate new and deepened knowledge of the
phenomenon entrepreneurship in the school setting. In order to achieve this aim the overall objective is
to investigate and explore the phenomenon by both empirical studies in different levels of education as
well as study the theoretical concepts and underpinning theories.
1.4 Research questions
My interest lies in the field of entrepreneurship and when the phenomenon entrepreneurship is
embedded in new societal context. More specific on the school setting where it’s interlinked with
learning situations. My two interrelated research questions together frame the research and are
designed to meet the research’s objective.
RQ 1: What characterizes entrepreneurship in a school setting?
The first research question responds to the need of understanding the concept of entrepreneurship in
the school setting from the teachers’ perspective.
RQ 2: Are there any initial perceived insights of introducing entrepreneurship in the school setting?
7
The second research question address the search for insights and imprints. When introduced in an
educational setting what is actually happening, and are there any perceived insights or effects.
1.5 Scope and contributions
In search of the characteristics of entrepreneurship in the school setting you end up in the midst of
policy expectations, theoretical considerations and the realisation of practice which I find intriguing.
Firstly would like to discuss some limitations. I have not performed in depth studies within all school ages
or level. One is carried out in a preschool environment and one in the lower secondary school. However
in addition I have performed a study on a national comprehensive level through mainly text analysis.
I have chosen to focus on the teachers. My reasons for this being (as earlier mentioned) that the
teachers’ views and attitudes towards entrepreneurship play an important role for pupils interests in a
subject (Hattie, 2009). Also they have influence on decisions on content and impact on legitimacy and
implementation (Sharma & Anderson, 2007; Korhonen et al., 2012; Sagar, 2013).
The area of research of entrepreneurship and enterprising in a school setting is still in its early stages
revealing a research gap (e.g. Mueller, 2012; Leffler, 2014). My contribution lies within this research
field, providing deepened knowledge and insights by explorative research on the old phenomena
entrepreneurship in the newer school setting. I also present a preliminary conceptual model on
entrepreneurship in the school setting which needs to be further discussed and developed. In addition
my research contributes to the ongoing discussion on societal entrepreneurship as discussed among e.g.
Steyaert & Katz (2004), Hjorth (2012) and Berglund et al. (2012).
2. Entrepreneurship and school
When studying entrepreneurship in a school setting the research concerns both theories on
entrepreneurship and learning. However my main point of research is entrepreneurship, viewing
entrepreneurship in a school setting from this platform. The section provides relevant theory, concepts
and previous research within entrepreneurship, societal entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education
and learning.
8
2.1 Entrepreneurship
Initially I would like to make some comments on theories and methods in relation to the research field of
entrepreneurship. A specific critique and ongoing discussion of entrepreneurship is the lack of a common
definition (Gartner, 1985; Low & Mc Millan, 1988). The entrepreneurship field is further accused of being
fragmented, phenomenally based and suffering from theoretical insufficiency according to amongst
others Bygrave (1989) Short, Ketchen, Combs & Ireland (2010) and Jones, Coviello & Tang (2011). And
Shane & Venkataraman (2000) spice up the discussion by saying that the field of entrepreneurship hosts
a “hodgepodge of research” (p. 217). However, if accepting the process of theory development as
incremental and gradually growing it is provocative and premature to demand something else (Jones et
al., 2011) even if some researchers suggests it is now the time to develop own approaches (Bygrave,
1989; Short et al., 2010). Therefore as a fairly new field methods and methodological approaches instead
have been imported and used from more established fields. This makes research challenging, on the
other hand reveals research gaps. According to Short et al. (2010) a specific strength of entrepreneurship
research is considered the relative richness of entrepreneurship data and insights from qualitative data,
as for example interviews. On the other hand, this could be considered a weakness since small sample
seizes do not permit statistical analyses. Bygrave (1989) then affirms that the field must build more
empirical models, since without a sufficient amount of empirical knowledge it is inadequate to build
robust theories.
So, turning back to entrepreneurship research and some approaches to entrepreneurship and related
concepts that I have chosen to present. Firstly, my literature study show that the main focus of the
previous research proceeds on an economical basis and (as shown by the forthcoming references)
predominantly discussed by men. Secondly, a way to frame entrepreneurship as a scholarly domain
(Landström, 2010) is by looking at in through primary approaches to defining entrepreneurship. These
are (i) entrepreneurship as a function of the market, (ii) the entrepreneur as an individual and (iii)
entrepreneurship as a process. Thirdly, there is an ongoing discussion on what competences are
necessary for an entrepreneur, but no consensus on which. Fourthly, the studies on entrepreneurial
learning is mainly performed within the SME context. For the fifth there is a related discussion to the
concept of the entrepreneurial self.
To begin with, entrepreneurship thus has its origin in economics with contributors such as Schumpeter
(1934) and Kirzner (1973) and has developed connotations as growth, business and value-creation
activities (Lackéus, 2013; Gibb, 2002). From my literature overview I can conclude that many of the
9
entrepreneurship contributors are men and discuss entrepreneurship in connection to economy and
business. The idea is that entrepreneurial people will create future goods and services, start and build
companies or in other ways contribute to an economic development (Gibb, 2005; Landström et al.,
2012).
However, since entrepreneurship research historically has anchored in and attracted scholars from
different research disciplines there are contributions from different aspects and angles of
entrepreneurship which perhaps explain the development on how to perceive entrepreneurship. Even if
there are theories on viewing entrepreneurship as a function of the market (e.g. Schumpeter, 1934;
Kirzner, 1973) and as an individual gene pre-existing within some people (e.g. McClelland, 1961)
nowadays the most common view is that entrepreneurship should be seen as a process (e.g. Gartner,
1988).
Hence, entrepreneurship was first rooted in economics and there are three main pioneers that needs to
be mentioned; Schumpeter, Kirzner and Knight. They were all interested in the entrepreneur as a
function of the market. Within Joseph Schumpeter’s economic theory change is spontaneous and
discontinuous, more radical and it disturbs the equilibrium (Backhaus, 2003). The change (or innovation)
is about “… the carrying out of new combinations” (Schumpeter, 1934, p. 66). Schumpeter understood
that these innovations must be carried out by someone, therefore giving the entrepreneur a central role
as “.. the bearer of the mechanism of change ” (Schumpeter, 1934, p. 61). Anyone could become the
entrepreneur, however it is not a profession since the role only last while actually carrying out the new
combinations. The entrepreneur is never the risk-taker according to Schumpeter, since that is the role
for the person who invests the money. In Israel M. Kirzner’s view the entrepreneur instead is the
arbitrageur (Höglund, 2013) who identifies and acts upon an unnoticed and unexploited opportunity
which makes it possible to get more in exchange than hitherto possible. The entrepreneurial element in
individual decision making is by Kirzner (1973; 2009) defined as “alertness” which can be seen as the
ability to notice earlier than others the changes that have already occurred. It is about knowing where to
look for knowledge. Kirzner does not believe in the existence of equilibrium because he denies the
possibility of complete information, and this standpoint distinguish him from Schumpeter. The third of
the pioneers of the economics era pointed out here is Frank Knight who instead sees the entrepreneur as
a risk-taker (Landström & Benner, 2010; Landström et al., 2012). He argues that opportunity arises from
uncertainty during change and the entrepreneur gets her profit through decision–making under
conditions of “true” uncertainty (Landström et al., 2012). Individual activity cannot be predicted and
10
hence entrepreneurial competence is the individual’s skill to handle uncertainty (Landström & Benner,
2010).
During the social sciences era (1940s – 1960s) entrepreneurship anchored in economic history,
psychology and behavioural science within which they studied the entrepreneur as an individual. Within
the two latter sciences the focus was on finding out who the entrepreneur is. According to Landström
(2010) one approach is the “great person” definition which sees the entrepreneur as one with a sixth
sense and inborn traits. Landström also brings forth another approach that suggests that the
entrepreneur is driven by a unique attitude, beliefs and values. David McClelland (1961) developed
through massive quantitative measurements the nACH factor. His theory was that people with a strong
nACH have a need for achievement that drives their activity and will to improve themselves, and they
want to win by personal effort, not luck. The achievement motive is sometimes called the
entrepreneurial motive.
Turning to the management studies area from around the 1970s William Gartner (1988) made the
entrepreneurship research take a shift in focus from the entrepreneur as an individual to
entrepreneurship as a behavioural approach focusing on entrepreneurship as a process. Gartner believes
the entrepreneur is a part of this complex process, but we should not look at who the entrepreneur is,
but what he does. Seeing entrepreneurship as a process is thought to be the main view among
entrepreneurship scholars today, discussed and reflected on by researchers such as Low and MacMillian
(1988), Bygrave (1989), Stevenson and Jarillo (1990), Shane and Venkataraman (2000). Sarasvathy (2001)
henceforth relates entrepreneurship more to an attitude and introduces the concept of effectuation and
causation. Sarasvathy argues that the essential agent of entrepreneurship is the “effectuator” an
imaginative actor who acts upon possibilities, exploiting them with any and all means to reach a diversity
of possible outcomes, many created by the decision-making process and not given a priori.
For the third, as I suggested there are many of the entrepreneurship researchers specifically or indirectly
discuss capabilities or competences relevant for an entrepreneur even if they do not agree on which.
Turning to the traditional entrepreneurship literature, the Schumpeterian entrepreneur needs skills that
could make her the bearer of mechanisms of change, but no risk-taker (Schumpeter, 1934). Knight
(1921) on the contrary sees the entrepreneur as a risk-taker who must be able to handle uncertainty.
Kirzner’s (1973) view on the market process demands entrepreneurs that can find and act on new
possibilities and therefore need to practise their alertness. There are researchers claiming that the
necessary skill is to discover and make use of opportunities (Timmons et al., 1987; Neck & Greene, 2011;
11
Muñoz, Mosey & Binks, 2011). Others place significance on creativity and innovation (Plaschka & Welsch,
1990) as well as learning from failure (Minniti & Bygrave, 2001). Karataş-Özkan (2011) raises the
relational aspect of entrepreneurial learning, in that entrepreneurs can learn individually, from teams
and networks, thereby paving the way for team- and social skills. Gibb (2002, p. 15) instead discusses and
summarises what he terms ‘entrepreneurial capabilities’ necessary ‘for the pursuit of effective
entrepreneurial behaviour individually, organisationally and societally in an increasingly turbulent and
global environment.’
Fourthly, this discussion on competences is related to, or discussed from the point of how
entrepreneurial learning occur. If considering how an entrepreneur learn you could perhaps find out
which competences are important (and learning situations, knowledge etc.) if wanting to become an
entrepreneur or being entrepreneurial. On the other hand if having a specific entrepreneurial skill in
mind one could search for how the entrepreneurs learn that. But the studies on entrepreneurial learning
is mainly performed within the SME context. There is research contributing to the understanding of
entrepreneurial learning within small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the learning that takes
place when an entrepreneur, often the business owner, creates, develops, manages and makes the
business grow (e.g. Deakins & Freel, 1998; Minniti & Bygrave, 2001; Cope & Watts, 2000; Cope, 2005;
Rae, 2005; Politis, 2005).
Lastly, there are some linkages to the discussion on somewhat critical discussion on the creation of the
entrepreneurial self (Rose, 1992; Peters, 2001).This is a view of the enterprising citizen which emerged
under neo-liberalistic leadership such as that of Thatcher and Reagan but today has been incorporated
into other political beliefs as well. The idea of an entrepreneurial self builds on a (political) belief of the
need to create entrepreneurial citizens necessary to future society. Rose (1992) describes these citizens
as people who by personal development flourish into individuals with energy and initiative, who look
upon their lives as a project, making a venture of it. Entrepreneurial selves are not seen in political
rhetoric as ‘subjects with duties and obligations’ (Rose, 1992, p. 142), rather as individuals with rights
and freedoms that wisely and responsibly make choices. In a culture of freedom they have the
opportunity to maximise choices, happiness and self-fulfilment, thereby focusing on realising their
potential and dreams. To do so they need to develop entrepreneurial skills such as becoming active,
creative, responsible, communicative and opportunity-seeking. Equipped with these competences they
will contribute to the rise of a successful nation, in terms of prosperity and growth. Becoming an
entrepreneurial self is presented as obtainable for all (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2008) but du Gay (1995) for
12
one points out the risk of marginalisation and exclusion of people actually not able to, or reluctant to,
behave in this entrepreneurial way. Through this the responsibility of being employable and committed
to life-long learning is partly transferred to the individual (Vandenbroeck, 2007). The discussion of the
entrepreneurial self has links to what kind of society we would like to live in and of the individual’s
responsibility versus the government’s. It emphasises and puts a lot of pressure on the individual to
accomplish success.
2.2 Societal entrepreneurship
Even if the entrepreneurship research area is striving for unity and common positions in theory and
practice at the same time there is another detectable development. Entrepreneurship research spread
and intertwine with yet other areas of research thereby paving the way for new concepts and multidisciplinary linkages such as strategic entrepreneurship (Hitt et al., 2001; 2011; Höglund,2013), social
entrepreneurship (Zahra et al., 2014), ecological entrepreneurship (Marsden & Smith, 2005) and societal
entrepreneurship (Steyaert & Katz, 2004; Hjorth, 2012). This development could be useful in explaining
entrepreneurship in relation to other developments in society but by doing this also opens up for new
challenges and questions which need to be answered.
The concept societal entrepreneurship was first coined within the 1980s discussion on regional
development within the local society however lay fallow and turned up again during the last decade
(Johannisson, 1990; von Friedrichs et al., 2014). Basically societal entrepreneurship is about having an
active civic participation in combination with an entrepreneurial act. Sometimes this is understood as
social entrepreneurship i.e. that a social entrepreneur have a social purpose with her actions at the same
time performing it through a business (Zahra et al, 2014). But societal entrepreneurship need not
necessarily be business related exclusively. The wider societal entrepreneurship concept include cultural,
educational, social and humane perspectives. According to von Friedrichs et al. (2014) within a rather
short period of time this has received a lot of attention from societal actors who believe in its capacity to
solving problems and meet societal challenges. Von Friedrichs et al. further mean that the potential of
societal entrepreneurship is its mark that it concerns development from many aspects and perspectives
in society, not only the traditionally commercialised perspective. As I have come to understand,
discussing the specific concept of societal research is strongly discussed among some Swedish
researchers such as Berglund, Johannisson and Schwartz (2012), Lundqvist and Williams Middleton
(2010) and Westlund and Gawell (2012). Adding to this scholars such as Steyaert and Katz (2004) and
13
Hjorth (2012) are discussing this development in terms of an entrepreneurship movement, where
entrepreneurship enters new contexts whereof school is one. This view is supported by Berglund et al.
(2012) further proposing that this development result in the necessity of enterprising people everywhere
in society. This in turn leads to the need for entrepreneurial skills and knowledge on a much broader
scale than only within specific business school courses, activities or programs thereby suggesting a
reason from this perspective to include entrepreneurship in education on a broader scale to reach more
pupils.
2.3. Entrepreneurship education
With entrepreneurships entrance in school on a more broad front new challenges and trends in
entrepreneurship research emerge and I will present three approaches to entrepreneurship education
(EE). I underpin these trends by referring to previous research. Firstly, there is an ongoing discussion on
definitions and terminology within EE. Secondly there is the question weather entrepreneurship can be
taught at all. Thirdly it’s a matter of what should be taught. What is the essential content and how does
this affect teaching. This is closely connected to what orientation the EE has, since these interact and
affect each other.
To begin with, there are competing discourses in entrepreneurship education. Initially EE addressed
knowledge based on a narrow definition of entrepreneurship with a focus on business development,
start-ups and value-creation in an economic sense (Lackéus, 2013; Gibb, 2002). Now there are two
competing discourses within EE. The other is much broader and relates to enterprising, learning and
pupils’ abilities to develop entrepreneurial competences (Leffler, 2014; Axelsson & Mårtensson, 2015).
Falk Lundqvist, Hallberg, Leffler and Svedberg (2014) view this as a learning approach. Gibb (2002)
introduced the concept enterprise education as means to move away from the narrow economic
definition of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur. According to Erkkilä (2000) this distinction of
entrepreneurship education and enterprising education in the British system is separated by that
entrepreneurship education more directly refers to small business management whereas enterprising
education has as its goal to develop an enterprising behaviour and develop skills that can be used in a
broader aspect than only a business environment. Another similar distinction, however using a different
terminology, is internal and external entrepreneurship education, which are both to be developed within
the Finnish school system (Komulainen et al., 2011). External entrepreneurship is about enhancing the
skills of the people who want to set up their own businesses. Internal entrepreneurship is defined as a
combination of flexibility, initiative, creativity and independent action with cooperation skills and strong
14
motivation. But there are even more divisions of entrepreneurship in education. Surlemont (2007) for
one have developed another division where he distinguishes between the technical competences
associated with entrepreneurship (business plan, opportunity recognition, financial matters etc.) and the
strategic competences associated with enterprising (teamwork, creativity). Surlemont argues that this
terminology blurriness is part of the explanation why there is a resistance to introduce entrepreneurship
in schools.
The tension between the two perspectives also shows itself in research by Leffler (2006), BackströmWidjeskog (2008) and Korhonen et al. (2012) which suggest that teachers are ambiguous in teaching
external entrepreneurship with a business focus and rather preferring the enterprising or internal
entrepreneurship approach. Komulainen et al. (2011) reinforce this idea stating that teachers see the
promotion of ‘external’ entrepreneurship in conflict with the values of basic education, and therefore is
substantially rejected as the aim of schooling. The teachers’ approach is important since teachers
according to Korhonen et al. (2012) as well as Sagar (2013) play the most important role in the process of
transforming EE in teaching practice and learning outcomes. They have the most important influence on
students’ interests at school (Hattie, 2009) and they strongly affect how and to what extent the
curriculum is implemented (Sharma & Anderson 2007). Therefore teachers’ views on and attitude
towards entrepreneurship affect implementation and legitimacy. A broader definition seem to prepare
the way for introducing entrepreneurship. The question of creating economic value is diminished when
the concept is transferred to the school environment (Gibb, 2002) yet Johannisson, Madsén, & Hjorth
(1997) say the entrepreneurship definition become more business-like the higher up in the school
system you come. Lackéus (2013) believes this might be due to its connotations to capitalism. Berglund
and Holmgren (2006) argue this is the way it has to be in order to make it possible for entrepreneurship
to find its justifiable place in the school system. If viewing an entrepreneur as an individualistic hero,
greedily taking advantage of other people, this may place obstacles in the way of implementing
entrepreneurship at school (Berglund & Holmgren, 2006) while entrepreneurship as a collective form is
tolerated to a greater extent (Mühlenbock 2004).
Secondly, another approach to entrepreneurship is whether it can be taught or learned at all (Fiet,
2001a). This has some linkages to the earlier presented research on trying to find specific personal traits
or a gene that could explain why some people are entrepreneurial and some seem not but also to seeing
entrepreneurship as a process. Kuratko (2005) and Cope (2005) say that it is possible, even if it is
considered difficult. Anderson and Jack (2008) mean some aspects can be taught and some not. Peter
15
Drucker (1985, 1998) says it is a discipline and like any discipline it can be taught. An entrepreneur is
committed to the activity of systematic practice of innovation. It’s a disciplinary work which consists of
the search for opportunities, finding them and exploiting them. Thompson (2004) on the other hand
means that talent and temperament cannot, and that these are decisive matters when entrepreneurial
people are starting up businesses or being strategic managers and intrapreneurs in an organisation.
Timmons and Stevenson (1984) argue that too little effort has been made in asking the entrepreneurs
themselves, and that this is important because they know most about this Heffalump. Most of the
respondents in their study say that analytical thinking, financing and marketing can be taught but many
skills as judgment, handling people, and patience can only be taught in the real world. What isn’t
teachable, according to the respondents are empathy, maturity, desire, responsibility and selfmotivation.
Carrier (2005) describes the question of whether entrepreneurship can be taught as obsolete. She rather
suggests a focus on what should be taught and how. This brings us forth to the third approach which
concerns content questions, working methods and implications for teachers.
Let us firstly consider the matter of content. Since the meaning of entrepreneurship lack a consensus
(Fayolle & Gailly, 2008) there are various definitions guiding EE. Berglund and Holmgren (2006) points
out that this will risk that he content of EE will be fuzzy. Fayolle and Gailly (2008) as well as Neergaard et
al. (2012) however do not find this problematic if the definition is distinctly selected and considered
when designing an educational program, and also if choosing the best pedagogic for the purpose of the
entrepreneurship course. Even so, there is no consensus on what students in EE should be taught
(Solomon, 2007). There are input on content from research mainly from EE focusing on business.
Necessary themes according to some of these researchers are risk (Kuratko, 2005), opportunity
recognition (Timmons et al., 1987), sources of venture capital (Vesper & McMullen, 1988) and business
entry (Gartner, Bird & Starr, 1992). Adding to this, according to (Vesper & McMullen, 1988) an
entrepreneurship education must involve developing skills in negotiation, leadership, new product
development, creative thinking and exposure to technological innovation. Hisrich and Peters (1998) and
Henry et al. (2005) argue that what you need to learn can be categorised in technical skills, business
management and personal entrepreneurial skills. Hisrich and Peters say (1998) what differentiate a
manager from an entrepreneur are these skills, which includes inner control, innovative thinking and risk
taking as well as being change oriented, persistent and having a visionary leadership. Moreover
Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) state that if accepting entrepreneurship as a process this has implications
16
for content and teaching. Entrepreneurship is more than just starting up a company, it is a process for
which some skills are necessary.
More and more entrepreneurial education has changed focus from “raw” entrepreneurship to
emphasize the importance of preparing students for their life as employees where innovation and
change will be ingredients or as self-employed (Kyrö & Carrier, 2005). A shift that could be linked to the
first discussion on a search for a new terminology and competing discourses. This means a transfer
towards enterprising education with a focus on developing entrepreneurial skills and attitudes and
personal qualities. (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008). Gibb (2002) supports this approach and wants the students to
learn how to overcome failure and become critical and independent thinkers. Boyd and Vozikis (1994)
stress self-efficacy, defined as a person's belief in his or her potential to perform an assignment. Kyrö
and Carrier (2005) and Komulainen et al. (2011) mean that necessary abilities to practice is to become
innovate, flexible, co-operative and competitive. In doing so the teaching methods need to involve
problem-solving, vocational skills, cooperation, creativity and risk-taking, opportunity recognition and
opportunity creation. Mueller (2012) argues that since the phenomenon of entrepreneurship is complex,
socially created and fluid it has to be considered in its specific cultural and social context. This will create
special conditions and challenges when it comes to teaching; it therefore calls for new and/or unique
pedagogies (Solomon 2007, Anderson & Jack, 2008; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Mueller, 2012). Plaschka and
Welsch (1990) for example propose that education should be more creative, problem solving, multidisciplinary and process-oriented.
When studying literature on entrepreneurship education some approaches and working methods seem
more prominent. Timmons and Stevenson (1984) and Henry et al. (2005) believe learning
entrepreneurship is a lifelong ongoing experience and that the best way to learn entrepreneurship is
through a mix of formal education and experience. The idea of mixing theory and practice as in
progressivism exemplified by Dewey (1916) and the experiential learning approach inspired by Kolb
(1984) are dominant within entrepreneurship and enterprising education, and they will be more
elaborated in the next chapter concerning learning. However, there is a discussion on how to create this
practice within education, a practice many of the teachers and most of the students lack (Gartner, Bird &
Starr, 1992; Anderson & Jack, 2008). Fiet (2001a) on the contrary wants to increase the theoretical
content in entrepreneurship education. Anderson and Jack (2008) agree that we need a theoretical
underpinning to the entrepreneurial teaching to help us understand about entrepreneurship in order to
help understand how. But the “how” still needs to be connected to experience in the “real world”. One
17
idea how to overcome this challenge is presented by Mueller (2012) where students learn through
experience knowledge, in opposite to entrepreneurs who construct knowledge through experience
practice. Experience knowledge is an iterative process in which knowledge is “experienced” through
social exchange and discussions with peers and teachers as well as interaction with the world outside the
classroom, and by having an independent and critical reflection on ones learning. Surlemont (2007)
offers another solution, stating that the most common and most successful entrepreneurial pedagogical
method in schools is to cooperate with its environment which is done in a project form, with real
problems and challenges. Partly this is problem based learning but an expanded version which gives a
higher flexibility, meaningfulness and commitment from the students. One of Surlemonts findings is that
when these school projects create a value outside the school it also will increase the sense of meaning
and pride for the pupil on a personal level. Success factors include a strong sense of ownership, working
in teams, initiatives that support experiential learning and reflection over your own learning. This sounds
as being well-suited with Fiet (2001b) who is a proponent of involving and delegate learning activities to
students i.e. what to do in the classroom, because this will increase the variety and reduce the risk of
boredom. On the other hand this might not only be an easy task. Results from Svedberg’s (2007) study
on a Swedish upper-secondary school show that there were problems with cooperation between school
and the enterprising environments in practice, for example that students gave up when facing problems.
An implication for the teachers is discussed by Johannisson et al (1997). They argue for the importance of
working with entrepreneurship in schools since interacting with society and with the private companies
help the teachers find new forms of learning and contextual places to learn from and in. Berglund and
Holmgren (2007) agrees with this and further add that this constitute a possibility to coherence since it
gives a comprehensive perspective for teachers and pupils to connect their experiences, knowledge,
ideas and contacts.
2.4. Learning
In this section I will present some theories on learning. It does not claim to be an all-compassing
explanation of learning theories. Instead the research presented is chosen due to its relevance for and
theoretical relations to the phenomenon entrepreneurship in a school setting.
Some of the pedagogical theories which seem to have much in common with learning entrepreneurship
in a school setting are progressivism represented by Dewey (1916) and experiential learning theory by
Kolb (1984). Moreover, as Seikkula-Leino (2011) states, also with social constructivism with a proponent
18
in Vygotskij (1978) and communities of practice by Wenger (1998). Linkages can also be found to
research on visible learning by Hattie (2009) and Arnot’s (2006) thoughts on citizenship and the creation
of the self. Below I present a brief overview of these learning theories.
To begin with, a contribution from learning theory derives from the American John Dewey (1916) and his
thoughts on letting pupils ‘experience being experienced’, nowadays often addressed as ‘learning by
doing’. If education shall reach its aim for the society as well as for the individual it has to anchor in
reality (Dewey, 1938). He wanted the students to work with hands-on projects and exercise problem
solving. The school was to provoke their curiosity, critical thinking and promote an active learning
situation. Dewey criticized education of his time and was thought to be progressive (Dewey, 1997). He
further said that learning is an ongoing reconstruction of knowledge which connects new experiences
with earlier in a continuous learning process (Beckman & Barry, 2007). Gärdenfors (2010) agrees with
Dewey’s experience-based thinking. The patterns that are important to productive knowledge receive
meaning when grounded in the concrete.
David Kolb (1984) brings forward a theory of experiential learning. This theory is built upon a synthesis of
perspectives on learning from Piaget, Dewey and the psychologist Lewin (Illeris, 2001). Kolb defines it as
a process where experience transform to knowledge in an iterative learning process including the four
steps of experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting. (Kolb, 1984; Beckman and Barry, 2007). The ideas
from Dewey and Kolb are commonly referred to in relation to entrepreneurship education. (E.g.
Timmons & Stevenson, 1984; Henry et al., 2005, Cope, 2005; Politis, 2005)
A paradigm that emphasizes the importance of language and is interested in the social activities between
students is represented by Lev Vygotskij (Selander, 2008). His perspective is socio-cultural, where the
organism is a part of its social context and the relations to others influence learning. One of Vygotskijs’
(1978) important contributions is his zone of proximal development (Lindqvist, 1999). The individual
learns more together with other people than alone. The zone of proximal development is the difference
between what a person can achieve by themselves and together with other people. Vygotskij
differentiate between an actual and potential level of development and a child’s teaching shall be based
upon the potential. Vygotskij states we have inborn biological prerequisites but is critical to a mechanical
view of the human in relation to her social surroundings and thereby reluctant to a behaviouristic view
on learning (Lindqvist, 1999). Vygotskij thinks that personal experience should constitute a base for the
learning situation, and it must not be underestimated. According to Vygotskij the natural driving force
for children’s behaviour is their interest, therefore learning must build on that (Lindqvist, 1999).
19
Turning to entrepreneurship education, there is unity that a constructivist perspective is necessary in
school (Lackéus, 2013) though school is according to Neergaard et al. (2012) still strongly influenced by
behaviourism. Learning by others (pupils, peer and or mentors) and seeking knowledge and help from
the schools surroundings are also parts of entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning
which accordingly constructs a link to theories on learning. (Deakins & Freel, 1998; Deakins, 1999;
Surlemont, 2007; Mueller, 2012) As stated by Rae (2005) both concepts of learning and
entrepreneurship are inherently constructivist, behavioural and social processes.
Roger Säljö (2000) also takes a socio-cultural perspective on learning and as Vygotskij underline the
importance of communication. Säljö also discusses learning through social practices. This aligns with
ideas presented by Etienne Wenger (1998) who has minted the concept of communities of practice
(CoP). Wenger describes that people learn by participating in social practices, a process in which we
learn things and become who we are. The basic idea is that human knowledge is a social act. This should
affect how we think about and support learning. The primary unit in Wenger’s theory is CoP, not the
individual or the organisation. A community of practice becomes a learning community by its close
interaction with experience and knowledge, and there must be a tension between them. In relation to
this Gohakle (1995) suggests that collaborative learning enhances both individual interest as well as
critical thinking and the method is good for problem-solving practices.
Recent theories are presented by John Hattie (2009, 2013) who argues that visible learning has the
greatest impact on study results. Here the emphasis is on the important role of teachers in teaching and
in meeting the pupils’ real-life world. The focus is on the classroom and the best visible teaching and
learning takes place when focusing on the goal (to achieve learning), giving and getting feed-back and
when there are passionate and active people (students, teachers) who participate in the learning. The
greatest effect is when students become their own teachers. The teachers must be instructive, being
influencers and considerate and according to Hattie good at finding the challenge in the tasks. Humboldt
is said to have expressed in 1810 “The teacher is not there for the sake of the student; both teacher and
student are there for the sake of learning” (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008, p. 569). I think this certainly is still
relevant today and that this aligns with Hattie’s ideas.
In addition there are Arnot’s (2006) thoughts on citizenship which also seems related. Arnot is describing
that present-day children are brought up in a self-culture where they are centres of their own world and
where their lives are perceived as art forms to be created. If being an opponent this could be interpreted
20
as accentuating the individualistic and egoistic view of the entrepreneur. On the other hand as earlier
presented, entrepreneurship education has changed focus to also include preparing pupils to better cope
during education as well as preparing them for their future life as employees or self-employment (Kyrö &
Carrier, 2005) and in that sense Arnot´s approach on children creating their future life align.
Also, viewing entrepreneurship as a process (e.g. Gartner, 1988; Low & MacMillian; 1988, Bygrave; 1989;
Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) suggests that people would need to handle
process management if being entrepreneurial, therefore need to learn how to become active,
participative and learn how to learn. Today, Swedish early childhood education is mostly influenced by a
sociocultural perspective with a child-centred orientation that considers children as competent and
active (Axelsson et al., 2015). In Sweden early childhood education is unique in its combination of
learning and play, care and fostering fundamental values whereof democracy is the foundation for all
activities.
3. Method and research considerations
I start by describing some research considerations on how my research interest was initiated and
evolved before I turn to the research methods used in my research studies.
The research process hitherto has been iterative and explorative since the entrepreneurship field itself is
a new field under development. During the initial phase this work emerged consisting of several actions;
mapping the current understanding, conducting literature reviews and discussing the initial research
ideas and possible contributions within my research group and with other colleagues at Mälardalen
University and networking within a national and Nordic network. Among some researchers this phase is
called research clarification (Blessing & Chakabarti, 2009) although perhaps this label is not altogether
suitable for me since I did not feel that this phase in the process was exactly clarifying, rather an ongoing
confusing search.
The research area and research questions chosen were so in a combination of identifying a research gap,
within a current topic also interesting within practice and society, where also my previous work
experience and passion could be useful. Since I previously have been working as a practitioner within the
field of innovation and entrepreneurship it was a natural step to initially perform a thorough literature
study on entrepreneurship. In a kind of snow-ball approach and through continuous discussions and
dialogue with researchers I continued performing literature overviews on learning, learning styles, and
21
entrepreneurial learning as well. Quite early in this explorative phase I coincidentally heard of a project
in Eskilstuna working with a project on entrepreneurship in a school setting funded by the Swedish
National Agency for Education. By environmental scanning I found out that this had to do with a political
driven idea to include entrepreneurship within the whole educational system, launched in a national
strategy for entrepreneurship in the field of education in 2009 (Government Offices of Sweden, 2009). In
my literature studies I found other scholars discussing lacks of research within entrepreneurship
education, entrepreneurial learning as well as in the interaction between entrepreneurship and learning.
These things combined led to a search for a deeper understanding of the phenomenon entrepreneurship
in a school setting. With my initial research questions in mind my research orientation have been
multidisciplinary, empirical and with a qualitative approach. Firstly because I thought combining
methods could help me better answer my research questions. Another reason being that since
entrepreneurship itself being a multidisciplinary and contextually depended phenomenon (Berglund et
al., 2012) I believed the research questions would benefit from empirical studies from the actual school
world. Also drawing on material from different settings makes it possible to see where the data intersect,
show similarities and disparities (Silverman, 2010).
I have so far been performing three studies (A-C) on my own and together with other researchers, and a
thorough literature overview (in several steps). My combination of methods include semi-structured
interviews, an in-depth interview using the stimulated recall method, participative meetings,
observation, document studies, analysing texts and critical incidents questionnaires; these will now be
further presented in relation to my studies.
Table1. Overview of the data collection methods connected to research questions and appended
papers
RQ
1,2
1,2
1,2
Data collection
Document study, semiconducted interviews,
participative meetings,
observations
Critical incidents
questionnaire, in-depth
interview
Text analysis,
document study,
participative meetings
Study
A
Paper/Report
Paper I
B
Paper II
C
Report I
22
The method in the studies are shortly describe below, including chosen methods for data collection and
analysing.
The first study (study A) was performed within the Swedish lower secondary school level. The study’s
objective was to develop knowledge about what happens when entrepreneurship is put into practice in a
school setting. It was performed in connection to the earlier mentioned project which aimed at
developing entrepreneurship at a school in Eskilstuna. This qualitative research study was conducted by
a literature study of related research, a document study analysing policy documents from a European
and Swedish level, e.g. policy and steering documents and nine semi-structured interviews. In addition I
attended separate participative meetings with management of the project (the school principal and the
project manager) including meetings on project planning sessions, of which two also included the schools
team leaders. The nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers. These teachers were
selected based on their involvement in the project. The study was underpinning the search for
developing an understanding of entrepreneurship in a school setting, and for the search for the
character and meaning of entrepreneurship in school. Here interviews created a more in-depth
possibility for understanding and provide closeness to real-life situations and context-dependent
knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2002). The interviews followed an interview guide which consisted of three
overriding themes, each with open-ended questions connected to it. The topics dealt with the project
and its process, results and effects as well as the concepts of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial
learning. The interviews took approximately 50 to 90 minutes and were audiotaped and fully transcribed
before analysed. Interviews and documents were analysed qualitatively in an attempt to explore
descriptions of and approaches to entrepreneurship in the school setting. Transcribed interviews and
notes from the meetings were also analysed in an attempt to obtain a deeper understanding of the
teachers’ view of their understanding of and practical approaches to entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial education. First a general analysis began with a read-through of the collected material.
Thereafter the empirical material was analysed for each interview and each answer itself and for each
document. Then a comparison was made between them, searching for both similarities as well as
variations.
The second study (study B) was conducted within the Swedish preschool context. In this study the data
was collected in two ways. Firstly in the form of critical incident questionnaires (Flanagan, 1954;
Hansson, 1995; Rubin & Rubin, 2004) and secondly collected from an in-depth interview, using the
stimulated recall method (Calderhed, 1996; Haglund, 2003). Five Swedish preschool teachers
23
participated. The participants were recruited from an in-service education course held by Mälardalen
University in 2011 on behalf of The Swedish National Agency for Education, however the study was
carried out after the course ended. All of the respondents answered the critical-incident questionnaire
and one of the five also participated in the more in-depth interview. Below I will elaborate a bit on the
method of critical incidents based on research from Flanagan (1954), Hansson (1995) and Rubin & Rubin
(2004). The aim of using this method is to shed light on what a person did, why he/she did it and the
outcome of his/her actions. The method of "critical incidents" means that the person(s) is/are given time
to think and describe the incident in detail. The questions contain both positive and negative examples.
In recent years the method has been used to study the preschool teachers’ experiences of other key
concepts as a tool in their educational activities such as learning and participation (Johansson &
Sandberg, 2010), diversity (Stier, Tryggvason, Sandström & Sandberg, 2012) and gender (Sandström,
Stier & Sandberg, 2013).
In this study’s questionnaires the respondents were asked to describe critical-incidents that illustrated an
incident regarding entrepreneurial learning in their work which they felt was successful and less
successful respectively. The reason for having chosen the critical incidents questionnaire from a
qualitative approach was that the preschool teachers had the opportunity to describe their experiences
of entrepreneurial learning in their own written words and also had the opportunity to reflect on the
phenomenon by describing it from their experiences. Hughes (2007) describes a number of advantages
for using this method: (i) the method is suitable for the research to a context-rich perspective on the
activities and their significance; (ii) can also make it possible to identify key research issues, and (iii)
develop a knowledge base. The latter (iii) clarifies context, strategy and results. In our study this seemed
relevant since research on entrepreneurial learning in a preschool context is in its early stages, where the
knowledge base is limited, the concept is context-rich and it helped us clarify early results of working
with entrepreneurial learning.
Secondly, data were also collected from an in-depth interview. To challenge and stimulate thinking and
acting around entrepreneurial learning in preschool we used the stimulated recall method (Calderhed,
1996; Haglund, 2003). The approach was intended to capture what preschool teachers actually do in
their practical educational work in preschool and how they talk about (in this case) entrepreneurial
learning. The stimulated recall method (Haglund, 2003) can be performed with some variations, however
it is a method where the researcher with help from audio- or video recording document an interviewees
actions. After the interview the interviewed person is able to see or hear the recording and comment on
24
it. By doing this the material is supposed to stimulate the respondent on her thought process during the
documented situation. In this study we started with an interview before video observation, where the
preschool teacher was interviewed about for example her definition of entrepreneurial learning, the aim
and how she worked with entrepreneurial learning. Then we observed the preschool teacher through
video recordings at lunchtime. After the observation, we did a second interview where the preschool
teacher was asked to give comments on the recording situation, on the content and what happens in this
situation. According to the preschool teacher, the interviews and video observation were carried out on
an ordinary working day. The interviews were audiotaped and each of the interviews was fully
transcribed.
After the data were collected, the description of the critical incidents and in-depth interview was
analysed qualitatively in an attempt to explore the preschool teachers’ understanding of, and practical
approaches to, entrepreneurial learning in the preschool. The analysis began with a read-through of the
material. During the initial phase the answers were read repeatedly in order to gain an overall
impression. After this general analysis, the main analysis was undertaken with the initial aim of
identifying general perceptions of entrepreneurial learning, i.e., what was common to all the
participants. Based on the analysis, we formulated four empirical themes: ongoing reflection, active
participation, meaningful learning situations and a tolerant atmosphere.
The third study (study C) is related to The Swedish National Agency of Education assignment to promote
the development of entrepreneurship within the educational system from the pre-school level to upper
secondary school and adult education (university level is not within their scope). Between 2009 and 2014
the National Agency for Education has invested approximately 130 million Swedish crowns to stimulate
work on entrepreneurship in schools (see e.g. Ministry of Education, 2013) as a part of realising an yhe
already mentioned entrepreneurship strategy in the school setting. This study’s aim was to investigate
one of the methods they used to stimulate the development, an investment named “Entrepreneurship in
schools”, which was letting the schools apply for funding for implementing entrepreneurship through
competence development activities for the teachers. The study includes 42 by lot randomly chosen
schools that received funding. This is a sample of the total amount of 232 principal organisers
(skolhuvudmän) who were granted their applications, of the total amount of 457 principal organisers
that applied. The selected schools represent the entire chain in the Swedish school system - from
preschool, elementary school, special school, secondary school to adult education. The material includes
both the applications and the evaluation reports, which thereby sum up to 84 documents. These
25
constitue the main source of data within this study. By investigating these I got the opportunity to both
study the initial ambitions of what entrepreneurship in a school setting was planned to be, but also what
it developed into in practice.
Besides the 85 documents in this study I also used the previously conducted literature study and carried
out a study of steering documents which included printed and digital material from public authorities as
well as internal working material within the National Agency for Education. I also attended meetings
with, and have had continuous dialogue with, representatives from the agency to receive information of
this investment and to discuss some questions and matters of clarification.
This study generates knowledge from how the principal organisers themselves describe the planned
activities and outcome. Their testimonies (through applications and evaluations reports) on the
competence development activities to strengthen entrepreneurship provided me with insights on how
they describe the insights, effects and experiences themselves. Analysing texts offers a possibility to
distance and which can provide new discoveries and perspectives (Winther Jörgensen & Philips, 2000)
and also an opportunity to treat the material equal. However there are also some limitations. There is no
possibility to deepen the understanding as for example interviews. The material is based upon a form
made by the agency which adds structure to my work, however also induce uncertainty on the reporters’
interpretations. Also, it is not possible for me to know who has written these applications and reports i.e.
to understand their previous knowledge and/or understanding of what is being reported.
The material has been mapped by firstly determine some comparable facts such as which part of the
school system the activity concerned, applied and received funding, which occupational category that
took part in the competence development activity and the amount of people involved in the activities
etc. Then, within the applications I have studied questions in the forms relevant to the research
question. Here the mapping includes investigating the activities aim and goal, previous experience of the
field, expressed need of competence development activities for the teachers, content and
implementation, time-plan and cooperation between the school and the surrounding society. Lastly,
within the evaluation reports I studied content of the planned competence development activity and
implementation to see what it developed into in practice, cooperation and networking, matters of
following up and evaluation and how (if) the schools will continue to work with entrepreneurship after
the activities are through. The analysis was first conducted with a multiple reading thorough the whole
material, to get an overview and comprehensive picture. Thereafter the material was analysed principal
organiser by principal organiser, application and evaluation report respectively which were compiled and
26
documented. Then the principal organisers texts have been put side by side based on which year the
conducted their activities to make comparison between answers possible and to search for similarities
and variations. Finally all years have been compiled and compared, to be able to see possible
developments over time. Insights and patterns visible through the survey lay ground for six empirical
themes.
Reflection on methods
The methods have helped me understand what teachers think about and do when they introduce and
practice entrepreneurship (entrepreneurial learning) in the school setting. Since I do not claim
generalisation instead consider my results being contextual dependent the semi structured interviews as
well as the in-depth interview using the stimulated recall method within the preschool and lower
secondary school provided a good way of getting more thorough understanding of the area investigated.
The teachers could freely describe their thoughts and be able to reflect on the subject. It also provided a
possibility to ask follow up questions. As previously presented a specific strength of entrepreneurship
research, which underpin this choice of method, is that interviews and other qualitative data methods
are considered to provide a relative richness and useful insights of entrepreneurship data (Short et al.,
2010). Using interviews on the other hand could be considered a weakness since the small sample seizes
do not permit statistical analyses. In that sense my research could be criticised for not containing a
sufficient amount of empirical material. However I am not aiming at performing statistical declarations.
Further qualitative research is time-consuming and there is always a delicate matter with a weigh bowl
between resources and a sufficient amount of material.
The method of analysing test as in the written material in study C gave useful insights as a part of getting
an overall picture since it covered “samples” (or rather randomly chosen schools) which together
constituted all school levels and schools throughout Sweden as a whole. It also worked as a kind of
litmus paper, towards which I could compare and the earlier results from study A and B.
My research could be criticised for not being founded on a clear core theoretical substance. However, as
earlier pointed out, my research cannot achieve that since the entrepreneurship field being multifaceted
fragmented and lacking an explicit theoretical base (Jones et al., 2011). This means this research is
performed within a research area in progress of theory-building and method enhancing, at the same
time therefore holds a possibility to contribute to a field in development. This implies there is a need for
more explorative studies in order to build up sufficient knowledge to form robust theories (Bygrave,
27
1989). An explorative approach involves asking more open questions, trying to understand and frame a
new knowledge field. My research address and contributes to this need.
In study A I’ve tried to achieve respondent validation by letting the interviewees read and verify my
findings and read the report before printing. In study C I have validated my results by discussing tentative
findings with representatives from the Swedish National Agency for Education, however not with all
participating schools, yet if doing so this would be a matter of time and cost. In study B the in-depth
interview using the stimulated recall method in itself made some validation possible, since it contains an
element of viewing the video together, and afterwards discussing the results.
I have tried to be transparent in the methods chosen and how the research was conducted therefore
making it possible for the reader to see on what basis I have presented results. Ultimately all methods
are analysed qualitatively in that the act of analysis is an interpretation. When processing and analysing
the collected data I have tried to work close to it, yet continuously reflecting over my position and preunderstanding for the area to be researched in trying to keep a critical perspective. However I do not
think it’s possible to isolate the researcher totally from the research and perhaps this is not even always
desirable as previous understanding also can be an asset, if being aware of its implications.
4. Results
In this section I will present my preliminary findings in relation to my two interrelated research
questions;
RQ 1: What characterizes entrepreneurship in a school setting?
RQ 2: Are there any initial perceived insights of introducing entrepreneurship in the school setting?
The first research question as mentioned earlier responds to the need of a deepened understanding of
the concept of entrepreneurship in the school setting. Two indicated results from the conducted studies
are that entrepreneurship in a school setting is characterised by a shift in terminology and a change in
practice.
This development that an “old” concept being embedded in a new societal context could be considered a
political push manifested in the strategy for entrepreneurship in education (Government Offices of
Sweden, 2009) and the following changes in the national curriculums (The Swedish National Agency for
28
Education, 2011; 2013). Notably, in these steering documents entrepreneurship is the word which is
used. However, when entrepreneurship is introduced in the investigated schools there is a shift in
terminology in practice. When entrepreneurship is transferred to the school setting it is discussed and
negotiated and changes into entrepreneurial learning. Both teachers in study A and B preferred and used
the concept entrepreneurial learning, and the teachers in study A also referred to working with
entrepreneurial learning due to the fact that it was written in the national curriculum. The results from
study C show that entrepreneurship is still met with a certain level of scepticism. The material reinforce
on a more comprehensive level (since covering many more schools than the other two studies) the shift
in terminology over time. Further, entrepreneurial learning was considered something very positive, this
was obvious in all three studies. A tentative result from the studies therefor is that entrepreneurial
learning as a concept has emerged amongst practitioners. The empirical studies however show that
entrepreneurship still exists as a concept, but more prominent in upper secondary school though
entrepreneurial learning is advancing here as well.
In the search for understanding what entrepreneurship in a school setting (or rather entrepreneurial
learning) means, “is” or is “filled with” as a concept the empirical studies points to a change in practice.
Within both the preschool setting and the lower secondary school setting entrepreneurial learning is
viewed as an approach. In preschool the approach according to the preschool teachers include an
ongoing reflection, active participation, meaningful learning situations and a tolerant atmosphere.
Secondly the findings show that the preschools teachers are describing entrepreneurial learning
incidents as incidents where the children practice entrepreneurial skills. The emphasised skills to train
were becoming initiative, creative, active, questioning, communicative and enterprising. Also exercising
problem-solving, decision-making and co-operation. The four aspects included in the entrepreneurial
learning approach visible in the preschool setting also shine through as important aspects within the
study of the lower secondary school. Further within the lower secondary school setting the approach
according to the teachers include three interrelated parts of entrepreneurial learning; the school’s pupils
carry out real-life projects, they do so in collaboration with the surrounding community and they practice
entrepreneurial skills. In lower secondary school the skills expressed important were similar to the ones
articulated within preschool. They needed to practice responsibility, enterprising, participation, activity,
creativity, innovativeness, problem solving, opportunity seeking/thinking, reflection and
communicativeness, as well as developing their drive, self-confidence and self-esteem.
29
The second research question address a search for impact, if any. When introduced in an educational
setting what is actually happening, are there any perceived insights? One notable insight seems to be
widespread among the preschool teachers and teachers themselves and that is that the work has
affected their work and changed their perspective on teaching and learning. Another insight is described
in relation to the pupils, that it has enhanced their motivation.
In study B the preschool teachers claim that working with entrepreneurial learning had affected their
work as educators. They perceived that they were becoming more daring, professional, reflective which
made way for a questioning attitude on for instance why they do things in a certain way, discussions and
peer-learning and for a more positive mind-set for change. This insight is also expressed by the lower
secondary school teachers in study A, entrepreneurial learning changed their perspective on teaching
and learning in a numbers of ways too. They expressed they work differently and change their practice
and they redefined their role as educators from traditional lecturing to coaches and producers of
knowledge. Entrepreneurial learning also became a platform for discussions on pedagogy and didactics.
Another experienced insight was that working with entrepreneurial learning affected the pupils.
According to the teachers in study A working with entrepreneurial learning increased the pupils’
motivation. Within study C there were only three evaluation reports explicitly reporting effects among
the pupils. One evaluation report claim that the grades have gone up. Another report described a selfevaluation were the pupils themselves state they have become more enterprising, see opportunities and
put them into practice. In the third evaluation report the teachers say that the pupils have become more
responsible and show more initiative.
The material from study C strengthens that the work with entrepreneurial learning was perceived as
both affecting pedagogy and methodology as well as giving insights that entrepreneurial learning is an
approach rather than a method or tool, and as such it demands perseverance and long-sightedness.
Finally, the investigation on national level in study C could very preliminary and tentative could be seen
as an overall indication on the result of realising the entrepreneurship strategy within education in
Sweden. In that sense it can say something of the development of entrepreneurship in the school setting
and imprints so far on a more comprehensive level. The work seems to be able to show some progress
since my research indicate that the principal organisers say they partly have incorporated
entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial learning in their ordinary school activities. The competence
development activities for the teachers were greatly appreciated, they were thought necessary and
needed for the development of entrepreneurship in school. Within this study not only the teachers but
30
also the school leaders in preschools and principals enhanced knowledge and new perspectives
regarding entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning which were are expressed as something
positive. Another indication of early imprints are that in the evaluation reports the principal organisers
after participating in the competence development activities for the teachers demonstrate a will and
endeavour to continue the work and often display the planned actions to do it.
A model of entrepreneurship in the lower secondary school level.
In trying to combine some of the results in paper I (which is based on study A), I and my co-author
provided a conceptual model which is to be furthered discussed, elaborated and refined. The model
offers a definition of entrepreneurship in a lower secondary school setting. This conceptual model offers
a definition of entrepreneurship in the school setting which consists of three interrelated parts: real-life
projects, collaboration with the surrounding community, including both private enterprises and public
organisations, and practising entrepreneurial skills. In this setting the prevailing language, or narrative, is
not entrepreneurship. Instead these above mentioned three intertwined parts together characterise
entrepreneurial learning in lower secondary school. According to the teachers the perceived effects of
working with entrepreneurship have resulted in an increase of pupils’ motivation that the teachers have
changed their perspective on teaching and learning.
Real-life projects
Increased motivation
Surrounding
community
Entrepreneurial
Learning
Effects
A changed perspective
on teaching
Entrepreneurial skills
Figure 1. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship in lower secondary school
31
5. Discussion
This chapter discusses the preliminary research results and their possible implications connected to the
aim, objective and research questions in my mid-way seminar text. The research aim was an attempt to
generate new and deepened knowledge of the phenomenon entrepreneurship in the school setting. As
shown by my literature study this area of research is still in its early stages (Mueller, 2012; Leffler, 2014).
In order to achieve this aim the overall objective was to investigate and explore the phenomenon by
both empirical studies in different levels of education as well as study the theoretical concepts and
underpinning theories. The focus in my research has been on the teachers. The reason for this being that
preschool teachers’ and teachers’ attitudes and practice heavily affect what actually happens in the
classroom. They influence teaching practice, learning outcomes, how and to what extent the curriculum
is implemented and pupils’ interest. (Sharma & Anderson, 2007; Hattie, 2009; Korhonen et al., 2012;
Sagar; 2013). Therefore teachers’ views on and attitude towards entrepreneurship affect
implementation and legitimacy.
To begin with, my first research question concerns what characterises entrepreneurship in a school
setting. My preliminary results so far which is strengthen by my three studies, show that there is a shift
in terminology. There are two competing discourses within entrepreneurship in education; simplified
there is one more narrow business-like definition connected to start-up activities and company growth
(entrepreneurship education) and one broader (enterprise education) more related to enterprising,
learning and pupils abilities to develop entrepreneurial competences (e.g. Gibb, 2002; Leffler, 2006;
Komulainen et al., 2011). However, my research, underpinned by my three studies, indicates that the
terminology now has shifted from entrepreneurship and enterprising to entrepreneurial learning. This
development is obvious in practice in the school setting. Entrepreneurship as a word and concept is still
existing mainly in the upper secondary school which is notable within previous research (e.g. Frank et al.,
2005; Svedberg, 2007), however is declining in importance in favour of entrepreneurial learning a
tendency which is supported by my study C.
However within research this development is not as obvious (yet). The concept entrepreneurial learning
has primarily been discussed within entrepreneurship research connected to small and medium-sized
business, and contributes to the area of knowledge on learning that takes place when an entrepreneur
(often the business owner) creates, develops, manages and/or makes a business grow (e.g. Deakins and
Freel 1998; Minniti and Bygrave 2001; Cope and Watts 2000; Cope 2005; Rae 2005; Politis 2005). Within
32
education apart from a few exceptions the phenomenon entrepreneurial learning in the broader
definition is much less researched (e.g. Leffler, 2014; Axelsson, Hägglund & Sandberg, 2015). Therefore
further empirical studies are necessary to contribute to knowledge and insights on the broader discourse
within entrepreneurship in education.
This change in terminology is perhaps the necessary entrance ticket entrepreneurship needs to be
accepted in the school setting (Axelsson & Mårtensson, 2015) due to the teachers’ reluctance to the
term entrepreneurship (Backström-Widjeskog 2008; Leffler 2009; Komulainen et al., 2011, Korhonen et
al., 2012) but the changed label also provides an opportunity to alter the orientation or content of
entrepreneurship education. My three studies indicate that they refer to entrepreneurial learning as a
learning approach rather than a subject or a specific activity, a development also pointed out by
researchers such as Falk et al. (2014). Further, this brings us to my next suggested tentative research
result, that there is a change in practice.
My studies from preschool and lower secondary school contributes to the understanding of what
entrepreneurship in a school setting (or rather entrepreneurial learning) means, “is” or is “filled with”,
that is what is actually going on when “performing” an entrepreneurial learning. In the preschool the
entrepreneurial learning means a learning situation that include an ongoing reflection, active
participation, meaningful learning situations and a tolerant atmosphere. These are also included as
important aspects of entrepreneurial learning in the study within the lower secondary school setting.
Secondly the empirical findings reveal that the preschools teachers are describing entrepreneurial
learning incidents as incidents where the children practice entrepreneurial skills. Within the lower
secondary school setting entrepreneurial learning seems to also include three interrelated parts on how
to exercise it. The school’s pupils carry out real-life projects, they do so in collaboration with the
surrounding community and they practice entrepreneurial skills.
The material from study C reinforce on a more comprehensive level (since covering many more schools
than the other two studies) both the above described shift in terminology and practice.
Perhaps an initial prudent view of these preliminary findings, if putting them together, could be that the
four aspects included in entrepreneurial learning; that is an ongoing reflection, active participation,
meaningful learning situations and a tolerant atmosphere, could be seen as prerequisites, supporting an
entrepreneurial learning situation or environment. And the somewhat bit more articulated ways of
working with entrepreneurial learning which include three interrelated parts; the real-life projects,
33
collaboration with the surrounding community and practice entrepreneurial skills could cautiously be
seen as a way of describing what the teachers do when working with entrepreneurial learning.
There are previous research supporting the idea for schools to carry out real-life projects and
collaborating with the surrounding society (e.g. Dewey, 1916; Kolb; 1984; Solomon, 2007; Mueller,
2012). Also, the tentative empirical findings from the studies on preschool and lower secondary school
level that entrepreneurial learning involves developing entrepreneurial skills aligns with previous
research which claim its importance for enterprising and entrepreneurship education both from a
pedagogic point of view e.g. by Leffler (2014) and Otterborg (2011) as well as from an economic point of
view (e.g. Timmons et al., 1987; Vesper & McMullen, 1988; Neck & Greene, 2011, Plaschka & Welsch,
1990). However there is no agreement on which to focus on. Also the aim within these discourses is
somewhat different. Where the economic discourse primarily discuss entrepreneurial skills with the
purpose to become an entrepreneur and /or start a business, the pedagogic discourse include a much
broader spectra of purposes. It is more of becoming entrepreneurial and these acquired skills are not
only for business purposes but also for individual and civic purposes during education and afterwards
(Axelsson, Hägglund & Sandberg, 2015). Leffler (2014) suggests the focus on enhancing entrepreneurial
skills within enterprising education would be to enforce the children’s ability to be initiating, opportunity
seeking, responsible, participative, self-confident and creative. These skills, and even more, are also
mentioned and referred to as important within my three studies.
My second research question address the search for insights. Are there any initial perceived insights of
introducing entrepreneurship in the school setting? Both the preschool teachers and teachers in my
study A and B claim that working with entrepreneurial learning affect their work as educators, and this
development is also underpinned by the study on national level (study C).They describe that
entrepreneurial learning develop their profession. It changed their perspective on teaching and learning.
Entrepreneurial learning became a platform for discussions on pedagogy and didactics and peerlearning. They expressed they work differently and change their practice and they redefined their role as
educators. This was also expressed as in becoming more reflective, daring, questioning and positive to
change. Another experienced change presented in both grades concerns the pupils. According to the
teachers working with entrepreneurial learning increased the pupils’ motivation. From study C there
were a few evaluation reports claiming the pupils enhanced their responsibility, opportunity recognition
and becoming more enterprising and able to put ideas into practice. Further, study C provided another
34
occurrence which was described as positive; the new knowledge and perspectives entrepreneurial
learning brought not only to the teachers but also to the preschool leaders and principles.
As presented in the results section I and my co-writer in paper I suggest a conceptual model of
entrepreneurship in a lower secondary school level. This offers a preliminary definition of
entrepreneurship in the lower school setting. It includes three interrelated parts: real-life projects,
collaboration with the surrounding community, (including both private enterprises and public
organisations) and practising entrepreneurial skills. It also display the teachers’ perceived effects of
working with an entrepreneurial learning, an increase of pupils’ motivation and a changed perspective
on teaching and learning among teachers. I would like to, merely as a light reasoning, try to build on this
model and research results from study A and include the results from study B thereby providing a
tentative conceptual model of entrepreneurial learning in a school setting which needs to be further
developed. If adding the tentative results from the preschool study (which also aligns with from findings
described in paper I) the four prerequisites for performing a supportive entrepreneurial learning
situation perhaps could be seen as constituting a platform or a supportive framework, permeating the
way of working.
Figure 2. A tentative conceptual model of entrepreneurial learning in the school setting.
35
Now, putting the discussion on entrepreneurship in a school setting in a wider context there are some
more implications that need to be addressed. Firstly, placing entrepreneurship in a school environment
means putting an old(er) concept in a new(er) setting. The base for entrepreneurship is within
economics, and today’s view of entrepreneurship is mainly based in management theories (Landström et
al., 2012) viewing entrepreneurship as a process (e.g. Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Rae & Carswell 2000;
Cope, 2005; Landström & Benner, 2010). When entrepreneurship no longer is limited to the business
sector (Mahieu, 2006) this pushes a need to be understand it beyond this economic or “businesslike”
meaning. (Gibb, 2005, p.46). Steyaert and Katz (2004), Leffler (2006) and Mühlenbock (2004) argue that
when entrepreneurship is transferred into a new societal context the economic rhetoric can undermine
its possibilities, implementations and legitimacy. The research presented here has shown that tentatively
the way the school cope with this is to change the terminology as well as the orientation in practice to
make it more suitable to their context. As stated earlier in this chapter previous research has shown that
teachers are resistant towards entrepreneurship (Backström-Widjeskog 2008; Leffler 2009; Komulainen
et al., 2011, Korhonen et al., 2012) but positive towards entrepreneurial learning (Axelsson &
Mårtensson; 2015). However, reverting to the initial political notion of introducing entrepreneurship in
the school setting, was this the aim? As shown in paper I the strategy (Government Offices of Sweden,
2009) and steering documents for placing entrepreneurship in a school setting such as the curriculums
(The Swedish National Agency, 2011; 2013) use the word entrepreneurship. The push and management
signal from politics for entrepreneurship entering school could thus be perceived as obvious. And in that
sense a preliminary interpretation would be that the government by doing this hoped to stimulate the
creation of more businesses which would provide job opportunities and tax revenues. But since practice
have transformed entrepreneurship into something else, this change in orientation raises questions on
governance and how the intended steering did (or did not) work. And as discussed by Leffler (2006) and
Berglund and Holmgren (2006) the development to change entrepreneurship to enterprising will not
accomplish the expected result – a comprehensive change of the discourse in practice. There is “ .. a
considerable more ambiguous picture than the harmonious impression given in policy texts” (Berglund &
Holmgren, 2006, p 2).
Secondly, the development that entrepreneurship is considered something good and positive has
evolved quite quickly (Berglund and Holmgren, 2008). It is nowadays seen as a saviour considered as
something that will help societies and nations prosper. However this view of entrepreneurship has not
been valid for long, historically the view of the entrepreneur was that he was a greedy individualist only
interested in profit (Landström, 2010). And since this transformation and realising of the
36
entrepreneurship strategy within education is ongoing, there is the question if the whole matter of
entrepreneurship in a school setting and entrepreneurial learning is a temporary faddish or in the
beginning of a lasting interesting process. In this respect, my research cannot contribute with insights,
only highlight that my study A and B show that teachers are positive to the development of
entrepreneurial learning. Moreover as presented earlier study C show a perceived foundation and will
for a long term commitment among the principal organisers. Therefore the work seems to be on the
move, and is currently able to show some progress.
Thirdly, entrepreneurship is considered something positive for the individual. People involved in
entrepreneurship and “entrepreneurial” activities will grow as a person, gain certain skills and become
entrepreneurial themselves (Gibb, 2002; Otterborg, 2011; Henry et al, 2005). But this phenomenon that
we all are supposed to become entrepreneurial, what are the implications? As pointed out earlier,
noticeably entrepreneurship comes from an economic discourse focusing on business and survival of the
fittest. But what happens when it is embedded in a new societal context such as education where a
somewhat contradictory discourse prevail focusing on democratic values, equality and solidarity with a
more collective focus. Even if my presented tentative empirical results show the school setting is
transforming entrepreneurship into something more suitable, much of the narrative and roots are still
within the economic discourse. Berglund and Holmgren (2007) says that there is an emphasis of certain
characteristics used to define the entrepreneur in research, and this seems to be used without reflection
to produce a type of person. The notion that schoolchildren are supposed to become entrepreneurial
and enterprising can also be linked to the somewhat critical discussion on the creation of the
entrepreneurial self (Rose, 1992; Peters, 2001). This discussion has links to what kind of society we
would like to live in. Is it to foster citizens ready to make their economic contribution for the states
survival or is it to help people grow as individuals becoming happy in their own choices and creating the
life they want to live, even if the choice means turning its back on the market economy? It is also a
matter related to the individual’s responsibility versus the governments. Becoming entrepreneurial is
presented as a possibility equally obtainable for all (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2008) but what if everybody are
not able to become entrepreneurial, then there is a risk of marginalisation and exclusion, as pointed out
by du Gay (1995). Further, as Vandenbroeck (2007) argues, the responsibility of becoming employable is
further transferred to the individual which will add more pressure on the individual.
Lastly, a few comments on the search for the red (common) thread. This search is not the main focus of
my research however I can discuss my results in relation to what seem to be the slightly invisible thread.
37
An implication of introducing the discussion of a thread implies and raise expectations that it will stick
together and follow the pupils’ development throughout the educational system. It is not visible in my
empirical studies how or when these discussions and synapses both on an individual level and an
organisational level, between different school grades will take place. I could however perhaps cautiously
reconnect to my previously presented research results which imply that in the early levels of education
the work seem more focused on exercising entrepreneurial skills and creating a learning environment
including elements of an ongoing reflection, active participation, meaningful learning situations and a
tolerant atmosphere. At a later step this is still important but they have added the two components of
working with real-life projects and in collaboration with the world outside the school. This is perhaps not
surprising since this could be seen as more suitable activities for pupils in the higher levels of education.
Finally a short discussion on the fulfilment of the aim and objective, my contribution and my choices of
paths in my future work. The research aim was to generate new and deepened knowledge of the
phenomenon entrepreneurship in the school setting. This has been achieved by investigating and
exploring the phenomenon by empirical studies in different levels of education and study the theoretical
concepts and underpinning theories. The research questions “What characterizes entrepreneurship in a
school setting?” and “Are there any initial perceived insights of introducing entrepreneurship in the
school setting?” were chosen to meet the aim and objective. Since I in the presented research am trying
to provide an answer to the questions, or rather provide some insights and preliminary indications, the
aim and objective can be considered fulfilled.
Since this is a mid-way seminar text and my results are in its early stages it would be presumptuous to
suggest an obvious scientific and practical contribution. With this said, however, as shown by my
literature study the area of research of entrepreneurship and enterprising in a school setting is still in its
outset therefore revealing a research gap (Mueller, 2012; Leffler, 2014). With the tentative answers of
my research questions and raising its implications in a wider context my studies have contributed to a
deepened knowledge and understanding in this research field. The preliminary conceptual model needs
to be further discussed, developed and redefined. Even so, it offers a definition of entrepreneurship in a
school setting, which is lacking. Also my research contributes to the ongoing discussion on societal
entrepreneurship as discussed among e.g. Steyaert & Katz (2004), Hjorth (2012) and Berglund et al.
(2012). The contribution to practice is to help highlight what actually is considered entrepreneurship, or
rather entrepreneurial learning, in a school setting, which could be used as inspiration or input in
discussions on a school level on how to further develop the work in practice.
38
The future work can take different directions and I am not entirely clear which way to go. However I will
describe my planned steps ahead. One of the articles “Entrepreneurial Learning in Education- Preschool
as a take-off for the entrepreneurial self” is published in the Journal of Education and Training. The other
article “Introducing Entrepreneurship in a School Setting – Entrepreneurial Learning as the Entrance
ticket” is to be presented at the 8th ICEIRD (The International Conference for Entrepreneurship,
Innovation and Regional Development) conference in June 2015. Thereafter I and my co-author aim at
getting it published in a journal. My report “En analys av Skolverkets satsning på utvecklingsmedel för
entreprenörskap i skolan” is to be rewritten into an article and an abstract which partly is based on the
report is submitted to the RENT - XXIX Research in entrepreneurship conference - with the title
”Entrepreneurship as a Mean and an End – A Generation of Self-Conducted Managers? “. The idea here
is to dig deeper into knowledge on the concepts of societal entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial
self. Further I need to collect more empirical material and plan for yet another article(s). One possibility
is to dig deeper into the areas investigated here, the preschool and lower secondary school. However, if
in search for the common thread it would be fruitful to move the phenomenon of entrepreneurship in
education to higher levels of education, as upper secondary school or the university level. Another
possibility is to study more on societal entrepreneurship and instead of drilling deeper in the school
setting place entrepreneurship in yet another societal setting and compare their characteristics and
development. Additionally one way of continuing my research would be to focus more on the concept of
entrepreneurial learning, and compare the usage and characteristics within education and enterprise.
Thus, the orientation of the article(s) and publishing strategy is to be decided and I am open for insights
and ideas.
6. References
Ainsworth, S., & Hardy, C. (2008). The enterprising self: An unsuitable job for an older worker.
Organization, 15(3), 389-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508408088536
Anderson, A., Drakopoulou Dodd, S., Jack, S. (2009). Aggressors; Winners; Victims and Outsiders:
European Schools’ Social Construction of the Entrepreneur. International Small Business Journal.
27, 126-132.
Anderson, A. R., & Jack, S. L. (2008). Role typologies for enterprising education: the professional? Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 259-273.
39
Arnot, M. (2006). Freedom's Children: a Gender Perspective on the Education of the Learner Citizen.
Education and Social Justice, 57-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4722-3_4
Axelsson, K. (2013). Rapport inom projektet Entreprenörskap i skolan. In JE Nyström & S. Järvinen (Eds.)
Strategier för skolutveckling: Rivna murar - byggda framgångar. 82-117. Eskilstuna: Eskilstuna
kommun.
Axelsson, K., Hägglund, S., & Sandberg, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial Learning in Education Preschool as a
Take-Off for the Entrepreneurial Self. Journal of Education and Training, 2(2), 40-58.
Axelsson, K. Mårtensson, M. (2015). Introducing entrepreneurship in a school setting entrepreneurial
learning as the entrance ticket. To be presented at the ICEIRD Conference, 2015.
Beckman, S., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedded design thinking, California
Management Review, 50(1).
Backström-Widjeskog, B. (2008). Du kan om du vill: lärares tankar om fostran till företagsamhet.
(Doctoral thesis). Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.
Berglund, K., & Holmgren, C. (2006), At the Intersection of Entrepreneurship Education Policy and
Practice. On conflicts, tensions and closures…, Proceedings from the14th NCSB Conference in
Stockholm, Sweden, 1-23.
Berglund, K., & Holmgren, C. (2007). ENTREPRENÖRSKAP & SKOLAN. Vad berättar lärare att de gör när de
gör entreprenörskap i skolan? Forum för småföretagsforskning. FSF 2007:17
Berglund, K., & Holmgren, C. (2008). What do teachers do when they do entrepreneurship education? …
and How can we ask about it? International Journal of Business and Globalisation. 2(4): 354–372.
Berglund, K., Johannisson, B. & Schwartz, B. (Eds.). (2012). Societal entrepreneurship: positioning,
penetrating, promoting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781781006337
Blessing, L. T., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology. London: Springer Science
& Business Media.
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial
intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 18, 63-63.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, 39-57.
Bygrave, W. D. (1989). The entrepreneurship paradigm (I): a philosophical look at its research
methodologies. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice, 14(1), 7-26.
Byrne, J., Fayolle, A., & Toutain, O. (2014) Entrepreneurship Education: What We Know and What We
Need to Know. In: E. Chell, & M. Karataş-Özkan (Eds.). Handbook of Research in Small Business
and Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Calderhed, J. (1996). Teachers´ beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.) Handbook of
educational psychology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
40
Carrier, C. (2005). Pedagogical challenges in entrepreneurship education. In P. Kyrö & C. Carrier (Eds.).
The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University Context. University of
Tampere: Saarijärven Offset Oy.
Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 29(4), 373-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00090.x
Cope, J., & Watts, G. (2000) Learning by doing. An exploration of experience, critical incidents and
reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research. 6(3), 104-124.
Deakins, D. & Freel M. (1998). Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs. The Learning
Organization, 5(3), 144-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696479810223428
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York:
Simon and Schuster Inc.
Dewey, J. (1997). Demokrati och utbildning, Daidalos AB. (Original published in 1916).
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. The Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series. First Touchstone Edition,
Simon and Schuster.
Du Gay, P. (1995). Consumption and identity at work. Sage Publications Ltd.
Drucker, P. F. (1998). The discipline of innovation. Harvard business review, 76(6), 149-157.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
Erkkilä, Kristiina. (2000). Entrepreneurial Education. (Doctoral thesis). New York: Garland Publishing inc.
European Communities. (2007) Key Competences for Lifelong Learning: European Reference Framework.
Education and Culture DG. Lifelong Learning Programme. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.
Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985626.013.821318
Fayolle, A.& Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in
entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7), 569–593.
Fiet, J. O. (2001a). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,
16(1), 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00041-5
Fiet, J. O. (2001b). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2),
101-117.
Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again.
UK: Cambridge University Press.
41
Frank, H., Korunka, C., Lueger, M., & Mugler, J. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and education in
Austrian secondary schools: Status quo and recommendations. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development. 12(2), 259-273.
Gartner, W.B. (1985). A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture
Creation. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American journal of small
business, 12(4), 11-32.
Gartner, W. B., Bird, B. J., & Starr, J. A. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from
organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 16(3), 13-31.
Gibb, A. A. (1993). Enterprise Culture and Education Understanding Enterprise Education and Its Links
with Small Business, Entrepreneurship and Wider Educational Goals. International Small Business
Journal, 11(3), 11-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026624269301100301
Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’and ‘entrepreneurship’paradigm for learning: creative
destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 233-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/14682370.00086
Gibb, AA. (2005). The future of entrepreneurship education – Determining the basis for coherent policy
and practice. In: P. Kyrö, C. Carrier (Eds.) The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a CrossCultural University Context. University of Tampere: Saarijärven Offset Oy, Finland. 44-67.
(Entrepreneurship education series 2/2005).
Gohakle, A.A. (1995), Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking, Journal of Technology Education,
7(1).
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & 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, 15(3), 56-77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242697153004
Government Offices of Sweden. (2009). Strategy for entrepreneurship in the field of education. Västerås:
Edita.
Gärdenfors P. (2010). Lusten att förstå: om lärande på människans villkor. Natur och Kultur, Stockholm.
Hagen, E. E. (1962). On the theory of social change: How economic growth begins.
Haglund, B. (2003). 'Stimulated recall'. Några anteckningar om att genera data. Pedagogisk forskning i
Sverige, 8(3), 145-157.
Hansemark, O. (1998). The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on Need for Achievement and
Locus of Control of reinforcement. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, 4(1), 28-50
Hansson, P. (1995). Critical incident metoden I Sverige: några anteckningar. In C. Stensmo, C. & L. Isberg.
(Eds.). Omsorg och engagemang, Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.
42
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London:
Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London:
Routledge.
Henry, C., Hill, F. & Leitch, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be
taught? Part I. Education + Training, 47(2), 98-111.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910510586524
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship:
Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic management journal, 22(6‐7), 479-491.
Hisrich, R.D., & Peters, M.P. (1998), Entrepreneurship, 4th ed., Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Hjorth, D. (2012). Introduction. In: Hjorth D. (Ed.). Handbook of Organizational Entrepreneurship, 1-18.
UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Hughes, H. (2007). Critical incident technique. In S. Lipu, K. Williamson & A. Lloyd (Eds.) Exploring
methods in information literacy research. Topics in Australasian Library and Information Studies.
28, 49-66. Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University: Wagga Wagga, N.S.W.
Höglund, L. (2013). Discursive Practices in Strategic Entrepreneurship. Discourses and repertoires in two
firms. (Doctoral thesis). Örebro: Örebro University.
Illeris, K.(2001). Lärande i mötet mellan Piaget, Freud och Marx. Studentlitteratur.
Johannisson, B. (1990). Community Entrepreneurship – Cases and Contextualization. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 2, 71-78.
Johannisson, B. (2010). The agony of the Swedish school when confronted by entrepreneurship. In K.
Skogen & J. Sjovoll (Eds.) Creativity and Innovation: Preconditions for Entrepreneurial Education.
Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press.
Johannisson, B., Madsén, T., & Hjorth D.(1997) I entreprenörskapets tecken: en studie av skolning i
förnyelse. Stockholm: Fritze.
Johansen, V., & Schanke, T. (2012). Entrepreneurship Education in Secondary Education and Training.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(4), 357-368.
Johansson, I. & Sandberg, A. (2010). Learning and Participation – Two Interrelated Key-concepts in the
Preschool. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(2), 229-242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502931003784560
Jones, M.V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): a
domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632-659.
Karataş-Özkan M. (2011). Understanding relational qualities of entrepreneurial learning: Towards a
multi-layered approach. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(9-10), 877-906.
Kirzner, I.M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. USA: The University of Chicago Press.
43
Knight, F.H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Harper & Row.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, (Vol. 1).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Komulainen, K., Naskali, P., Korhonen, M. & Keskitalo-Foley S. (2011). Internal entrepreneurship –A
Trojan horse of the neoliberal governance of education? Finnish pre-and in-service teachers’
implementation of and resistance towards entrepreneurship education. Journal for Critical
Education Policy Studies, 9(1), 341-374.
Korhonen, M., Komulainen, K. & Räty, H. (2012). Not everyone is cut out to be the entrepreneur type:
How Finnish school teachers construct the meaning of entrepreneurship education and the
related abilities of the pupils. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(1), 1-19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.567393
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and
challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00099.x
Kyrö, P., & Carrier, C. (Eds.). The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University
Context. University of Tampere: Saarijärven Offset Oy.
Lackéus, M. (2013). Entreprenöriellt lärande Vad innebär det och vilken betydelse kan det ha? En
kunskapsöversikt. Kommunförbundet Skåne. Forskning i korthet 2013:2.
Landström, H. (2010). Pioneers in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research, New York: Springer.
Landström, H., & Benner, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship research: a history of scholarly migration. In: H.
Landström & F. Lohrke. (Eds.). Historical Foundations of Entrepreneurship Research, Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar, 15-45.
Landström, H., Harirchi, G. & Åström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base.
Research Policy, 41(7), 1154-1181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.009
Leffler, E. (2006). Företagsamma elever. Diskurser kring entreprenörskap och företagsamhet i skolan.
(Doctoral thesis). Umeå: Umeå University.
Leffler, E. (2009). The many faces of entrepreneurship: A discursive battle for the school arena. European
Educational Research Journal, 8(1), 104-116.
Leffler, E. (2014). Enterprise Learning and School Subjects – A Subject Didactic Issue? Journal of
Education and Training, 1(2), 15-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jet.v1i2.5194
Lindström, L. (2013). What Do Children Learn at Swedish Preschools? International Education Studies,
6(4), 236. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n4p236
Lindqvist, G. (1999). Vygotskij och skolan. Studentlitteratur.
Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of
management, 14(2), 139-161.
44
Lundqvist, M.A., & Williams Middleton, K.L. (2010). Promises of societal entrepreneurship: Sweden and
beyond. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 4, 24-36.
Mahieu, R. (2006). Agents of Change and Policies of Scale. A policy study of Entrepreneurship and
Enterprise in Education. (Doctoral thesis). Umeå: Umeå University.
Marsden, T., & Smith, E. (2005). Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable development in local
communities through quality food production and local branding. Geoforum, 36(4), 440-451.
McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Ministry of Education (Utbildningsdepartementet). (2013). Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2013 avseende
Statens skolverk. Regeringsbeslut. I:18. U2013/7784/S
Minniti, M., & Bygrave, W. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 25(3), 5-16.
Mueller, S. (2012). The mature learner: understanding entrepreneurial learning processes of university
students from a social constructivist perspective. (Doctoral thesis) Aberdeen: Robert Gordon
University.
Munoz, C. A., Mosey, S., & Binks, M. (2011). Developing opportunity-identification capabilities in the
classroom: visual evidence for changing mental frames. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 10(2), 277–295.
Mühlenbock, Y. (2004) Inget personligt. Om entreprenörskap i offentlig sektor. Doctoral thesis.
Göteborg: Göteborg University.
Neck, H., & Greene, P. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Knows Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of
Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.
Neergaard, H., Tanggaard, L., Krueger, N. F., & Robinson, S. (2012). Pedagogical Interventions in
entrepreneurship from behaviourism to existential learning. ISBE 2012.
OECD. (1989). Towards an "Enterprising" Culture: Challenge for Education and Training. Paris:
OECD/CERI.
Peterman, N. E. & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129-144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-6520.2003.00035.x
Peters, M. (2001). Education, enterprise culture and the entrepreneurial self: A Foucauldian perspective.
The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 58-71.
Plaschka, GR., & Welsch, HP. (1990). Emerging Structures in Entrepreneurship Education: Curricular
Designs and Strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), 55-71.
Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 29(4), 399-424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00091.x
Rae, D. (2000) Understanding entrepreneurial learning: a question of how? International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 6(3), 145-159.
45
Rae, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial learning: a narrative-based conceptual model. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, 12(3), 323-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000510612259
Raposo, M., & Do Paço, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Relationship between education and
entrepreneurial activity. Psicothema, 23(3), 453-457.
Ravasi, D., & Turati, C. (2005). Exploring entrepreneurial learning: a comparative study of technology
development projects. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 137-164.
Rose, N. (1992). Governing the enterprising self. In P. Heelas, P. Morris & P.M. Morris (Eds.) The values of
the enterprise culture. The moral debate. New York: Routledge.
Rubin, H.J., & Rubin I.S. (2004). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sagar, H. (2013). Teacher Change in Relation to Professional Development in Entrepreneurial Learning.
(Doctoral thesis). Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Sandström, M., Stier, J. & Sandberg, A. (2013). Working with Gender Pedagogics at Fourteen Swedish
Preschools. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 11(2), 123-132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476718X12466205
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic
inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of management Review, 26(2), 243-263.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Seikkula‐Leino, J. (2011). The implementation of entrepreneurship education through curriculum reform
in Finnish comprehensive schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 69-85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220270903544685
Selander, S. (2008). Tecken för lärande – tecken på lärande. Ett designteoretiskt perspektiv. In
A.L.Rostvall & S. Selander (Eds.) Design för lärande. Nordstedts akademiska förlag.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research, Academy
of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Sharma, A., & Anderson, C.W. (2007). Recontextualization of science from lab to school: Implications for
science literacy. Science & Education, 18(9), 1253-1275.
Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). Research methods in entrepreneurship
Opportunities and challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 6-15.
Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research. Great Britain: SAGE publications Ltd.
Solomon G., (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168–182.
Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management.
Strategic management journal, 11 (5), 17-27.
46
Steyaert, C. & Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical,
discursive and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship & Regional development, 16(3), 179-196.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0898562042000197135
Stier, J., Tryggvason, M-T., Sandström, M. & Sandberg, A. (2012). Diversity management in preschools
using a critical incident approach. Intercultural Education, 23(4), 285-296.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2012.724877
Surlemont, B. (2007). Promoting enterprising: a strategic move to get schools’ cooperation in the
promotion of entrepreneurship. In: A. Fayolle (Ed.) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship
Education: Contextual perspectives. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781847206985.00027
Svedberg, G. (2007). Entreprenörskapets avtryck i klassrummets praxis. (Doctoral thesis). Umeå: Umeå
University.
The Swedish National Agency for Education. (2010). Curriculum for the preschool Lpfö98 Revised 2010.
Stockholm: Edita.
The Swedish National Agency for Education. (Skolverket). (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school,
preschool class and the recreation centre. Stockholm: Ordförrådet AB. Retrieved at:
http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2687
The Swedish National Agency for Education. (Skolverket). (2013). Curriculum for the upper secondary
school. Stockholm: Fritzes. Retrieved at: http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2975
Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. Prisma.
Timmons, J. A., Muzyka, D. F., Stevenson, H.H, & Bygrave, W.D. (1987). Opportunity recognition: the core
of entrepreneurship. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 109-123.
Timmons, J.A., & Stevenson, H.H. (1984). Entrepreneurship Education in the 1980s: What Do
Entrepreneurs Say? Division of Research, Harvard Business School, Research paper, 75th
anniversary colloquium series. Vol.9
Thompson, J.L. (2004). The facets of the entrepreneur: identifying entrepreneurial potential.
Management Decision, 42(2), 243 – 258.
Vandenbroeck, M. (2007). Beyond anti‐bias education: changing conceptions of diversity and equity in
European early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
15(1), 21-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502930601046604
Vesper, K.H., & McMullan, W.E. (1988). Entrepreneurship: today courses, tomorrow degrees?
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13 (1), 7-13.
Von Friedrichs, Y., Gawell, M., & Wincent, J. (2014). Samhällsentreprenörskap: Samverkande för lokal
utveckling. Fakulteten för humanvetenskap. Tryckeriet, Mittuniversitetet, Sundsvall.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
47
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Learning in doing: social,
cognitive, and computational perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Westlund, H., & Gawell, M. (2012). Building social capital for social entrepreneurship. Annals of Public
and Cooperative Economics, 83(1), 101-116.
Winther Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2000). Diskursanalys som teori och metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Zahra, S. A., Newey, L. R., & Li, Y. (2014). On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for
international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 137-158.
7. Appended papers
Paper I
Axelsson, K. Mårtensson, M. (2015). Introducing entrepreneurship in a school setting entrepreneurial
learning as the entrance ticket. To be presented at the ICEIRD Conference, 2015.
Paper II
Axelsson, K., Hägglund, S., & Sandberg, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial Learning in Education Preschool as a
Take-Off for the Entrepreneurial Self. Journal of Education and Training, 2(2), 40-58.
Report I
Axelsson, K. (2015). En analys av Skolverkets satsning på utvecklingsmedel för entreprenörskap i skolan.
Rapport på uppdrag av Skolverket, Mälardalens högskola.
48