Does entrepreneurship education in the first year of higher education develop entrepreneurial intentions? The role of learning and inspiration

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20 Studies in Higher Education ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20 Does entrepreneurship education in the first year of higher education develop entrepreneurial intentions? The role of learning and inspiration Ghulam Nabi, Andreas Walmsley, Francisco Liñán, Imran Akhtar & Charles Neame To cite this article: Ghulam Nabi, Andreas Walmsley, Francisco Liñán, Imran Akhtar & Charles Neame (2018) Does entrepreneurship education in the first year of higher education develop entrepreneurial intentions? The role of learning and inspiration, Studies in Higher Education, 43:3, 452-467, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1177716 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1177716 © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 01 Jun 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 19604 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 90 View citing articles Does entrepreneurship education in the first year of higher education develop entrepreneurial intentions? The role of learning and inspiration Ghulam Nabi a *, Andreas Walmsley b , Francisco Liñán c , Imran Akhtar d and Charles Neame e a Business School, All Saints Campus. Manchester Metropolitan University, Oxford Road, Manchester M15 6BH, UK; b Faculty of Business, University of Plymouth, 326 Cookworthy Building, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK; c Faculty of Economics and Business, Universidad de Sevilla // University of Seville, Av. Ramon y Cajal, 1. E41018 –Sevilla, Spain; d Business School, All Saints Campus. Manchester Metropolitan University, Oxford Road, Manchester M15 6BH, UK; e Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, All Saints Campus. Manchester Metropolitan University, Oxford Road, Manchester M15 6BH, UK Drawing on entrepreneurship education (EE) theory, this article examines the role of learning and inspiration in developing students’entrepreneurial intentions in the First Year in Higher Education. This addresses the paucity of research on early university experiences of EE and their influence on entrepreneurial intentions. Using a longitudinal survey of business students at a British university, the authors identify four scenarios related to the participation/non-participation in EE and subsequent increase or decrease of entrepreneurial intentions. A sub-set of those surveyed are interviewed (n= 49) to better understand how their university experience has influenced their entrepreneurial intentions. Findings suggest that the influence of EE is variable, in some cases even leading to a decrease in entrepreneurial intentions. The results contribute to theories of EE and intentions in the early stages of higher education. The authors discuss implications for theory and practice. Keywords: entrepreneurship education; learning; inspiration; entrepreneurial intentions; First Year in Higher Education Introduction Entrepreneurship education (EE) has expanded rapidly in higher education (HE) institutions around the world (Fretschner and Weber 2013). This expansion has been driven by entrepreneurship’s promise as a vehicle for promoting economic renewal and growth (Greene and Saridakis 2008). A major premise underpinning the expansion of EE is that entrepreneurship can be learnt (Fretschner and Weber 2013), can develop student entrepreneurial intentionality (Pittaway and Cope 2007) and ultimately facilitate business start-up (Nabi, Holden, and Walmsley 2010). However, there is little understanding of how EE increases intent, and indeed not all studies suggest it does (e.g. Oosterbeek, Van Praag, and Ijsselstein 2010). © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Studies in Higher Education, 2018 Vol. 43, No. 3, 452–467, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1177716 Limited research exists that examines the details of EE itself, and how it influences entrepreneurial intentions (Lorz, Mueller, and Volery 2013). Furthermore, most studies examining the impact of EE on entrepreneurial intentions focus on the latter stages of a university student’s journey (Collins, Hannon, and Smith 2004; Liñán, Urbano, and Guerrero 2011). Students about to graduate might arguably be more concerned about the transition from education to work than those further from graduation (Lemmink, Schuijf, and Streukens 2003). This, however, leaves a gap regarding early HE experiences and their influence on entrepreneurial intentions, despite recent recognition that the transition into HE is complex (Brooman and Darwent 2014) and can be significant to the development of entrepreneurial intentions (EU 2012; Smith and Beasley 2011). Consequently, this study focuses on the role of EE in developing students’entrepreneurial intentions in the First Year in Higher Education (henceforth FYHE). In particular, we focus on entrepreneurial learning and inspiration as key elements of EE (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007). We couch our research in the context of the purpose of HE. For some stakeholders, HE represents an instrumentalist mechanism for contributing to the increased efficiency and output of the economy, the development of students’technical skills and employability prospects (e.g. Leitch 2006). At the other extreme, HE is cast in more philosophical terms as primarily a developmental process (Biesta 2013; Dewey 1897), where the key stakeholder is the learner rather than the economy. 1 In practice, a blended conception of purpose has emerged over the last 20 years (Dearing 1997). Although UK government policy (and business schools) tends to take the former narrower, instrumentalist view (BIS 2015) aiming to enhance students’entrepreneurial capability and intent, this does not mean that they ignore wider conceptions of purpose. Thus, in our research, we consider the purpose of EE in the FYHE as both a ‘development of the student’(an enlightenment purpose) and as useful for future entrepreneurial prospects (a neo-liberal purpose). In addition to a longitudinal survey with a pre-post intervention research design – frequently absent in studies of the influence of EE on entrepreneurial intentions (Lorz, Mueller, and Volery 2013)–we also analyse qualitative interview data. The qualitative data seek to strengthen the quantitative analysis, providing fine-grained insights into the ‘how’of the education-intentions link. In contributing to understanding the role of EE in the FYHE in developing entrepreneurial intentions, our research should consequently be of interest to educators, researchers and policy-makers. Literature review Theoretical positioning: entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions The development of entrepreneurial intentions is increasingly being encouraged from the outset of HE through to graduation, with the aim of stimulating entrepreneurial behaviour (Smith and Beasley 2011). The early development of entrepreneurial intentions is particularly important because it can lead to later persistence in the intention to start up a business (DeGeorge and Fayolle 2008). As a period of transition, FYHE entrepreneurship programmes play an important role in the development of entrepreneurial intentions (Shapero and Sokol 1982). Studies in Higher Education 453 Notwithstanding numerous studies on the formation of entrepreneurial intentions, which frequently draw on Ajzen’s(1991) and Shapero and Sokol’s(1982) work, research on EE is still at an exploratory stage of theoretical and conceptual development (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007). Certainly, very little work has been undertaken on the development of student entrepreneurial intentions specifically in the FYHE. Drawing on Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham’s(2007) framework, we focus on two main areas of EE: entrepreneurial learning (knowledge and skills) and entrepreneurial inspiration (changing hearts and minds towards entrepreneurship). The framework also incorporates entrepreneurial intentions, which refer to ‘a conscious awareness and conviction by an individual that they intend to set up a new business venture and plan to do so …’(Nabi, Holden, and Walmsley 2010, 538). This framework provides an overarching theoretical lens highlighting types of entrepreneurial learning and inspiration related to enhancing (or decreasing) entrepreneurial intentions in the FYHE. Entrepreneurial learning and intentions in the FYHE Recent research on the complexity of learning in HE highlights that there is little attention paid to the ‘what, how and from whom’students acquire skills for their future employment (Jackson 2015). We argue that these criticisms apply equally to research on EE and the development of entrepreneurial intentions. We therefore draw on Johannisson’s(1991) work on entrepreneurial learning, which Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al- Laham (2007) later develop, and conceptualise as comprising: know-why (values and motivation of entrepreneurs), know-what (knowledge about what needs to be done), know-how (practical abilities and skills), know-who (awareness of social networks and ability to use them) and know-when (experience and intuition about when to take action). This classification emphasises a breadth of entrepreneurial knowledge and skills, and a depth of understanding about the business start-up process. Johannisson’s(1991) conceptualisation of learning encompasses ‘inspiration’(why entrepreneurs act), a separate concept discussed later in the paper. However, as operationalised by Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007), knowing what motivates entrepreneurs is different from being motivated oneself. Hence, the former is still a part of entrepreneurial learning (as opposed to entrepreneurial inspiration). Past research suggests that learning from EE programmes can improve the ability to identify opportunities and enhance entrepreneurial intentions (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007). In this sense, recent empirical reviews (Lorz, Mueller, and Volery 2013) suggest a positive relationship between participating in an EE programme and developing entrepreneurial intentions. Yet, the evidence in this respect is equivocal. For example, Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007) found no significant relationship between EE programme learning and intentions. Other studies even suggest an inverse relationship between EE programmes and entrepreneurial intentions (Oosterbeek, Van Praag, and Ijsselstein 2010; Von Graevenitz, Harhoff, and Weber 2010). Explanations include a growing realisation of the limits to personal abilities and an increased awareness of the challenges inherent in starting a business (Oosterbeek, Van Praag, and Ijsselstein 2010). Although plausible, these explanations remain speculative. More empirically rooted research about the ‘what’and the ‘how’of EE programmes’relationship with entrepreneurial intentions is therefore needed (Lorz, Mueller, and Volery 2013; Pittaway and Cope 2007). 454 G. Nabi et al. Furthermore, the limited empirical research that exists (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al- Laham 2007) does not explore the relationship between different types of entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial intentions. The broader literature on EE, however, offers insights into different types of entrepreneurial learning (Fayolle, Gailly, and Lassas-Clerc 2006; Johannisson 1991), suggesting a fundamental distinction between theoretical (e.g. ‘know-what’,‘know-why’) and practical-based (e.g. ‘know-how’, ‘know-who’) learning. Whilst the former includes theoretical knowledge such as what motivates entrepreneurs and what needs to be done in the business start-up process, the latter encompasses a range of practical competences such as acquiring new skills and abilities related to opportunity identification, creativity, marketing, finance and accessing social networks (Johannisson 1991; Nabi, Holden, and Walmsley 2010). The lack of research that explores such types of learning and the relationship to entrepreneurial intentions in the FYHE provides a rationale for the qualitative approach adopted in our research. Entrepreneurial inspiration and intentions in the FYHE Inspiration entails motivation, becoming energised and directing behaviour towards a desired target. It also involves a trigger, such as a person, idea or event (Thrash and Elliot 2003), which may influence new thoughts and behaviours that help the individual achieve a desired target. Within the context of EE, entrepreneurial inspiration has been defined as ‘a change of hearts (emotion) and minds (motivation) evoked by events or inputs from the programme and directed towards considering becoming an entrepreneur’(Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007, 573). Although a limited number of studies investigate entrepreneurial intentions in the FYHE (Majumdar and Varadarajan 2013), Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham’s (2007) study is the only empirical study that focuses specifically on inspiration (albeit not in the FYHE). The study reports that it is entrepreneurial inspiration (rather than other EE programme benefits) which positively relates to the start-up intention. Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007, 587) conclude: …often there is something more than information, background, personality or cognition, which is whether the individual ‘falls in love’with the entrepreneurial career and/or with an entrepreneurial opportunity driven by emotion and personal preference (love is blind) rather [than] rational evaluation. Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007) only examine entrepreneurial inspiration from an EE programme in a general sense. In contrast, an EE programme can offer various triggers (Thrash and Elliot 2003). They could encompass a broad twofold classification of people (e.g. university lecturers, role models, mentors and entrepreneurs) and events (and the ideas that are stimulated by these events) from educational activities (e.g. business simulation exercises, business plan development and presentation of ideas) (cf. Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007; Thrash and Elliot 2003). The lack of research that explores such types of inspiration (as with learning) and the relationship to entrepreneurial intentions in the FYHE provides a rationale for the qualitative approach adopted in our research. The direction of inspiration from entrepreneurship programmes is also worth exploring. Inspiration can be both positive and/or negative in terms of moving the individual towards or away from entrepreneurship. Early HE experiences could inspire Studies in Higher Education 455 students towards an entrepreneurial career path (i.e. business start-up) or towards alternative career paths (e.g. organisational employment). Thus, it is important to look at our EE programme in the FYHE holistically to analyse how students have been inspired or deterred from entrepreneurial intentions. Methodology We collected data from FYHE students on two separate occasions. First (2012/2013), we employed a survey to collect data on entrepreneurial intentions from undergraduate business school students (on EE and non-EE programmes) at the beginning of their first year at a British university in the North West of England. One year later (2013/2014), we conducted a follow-up survey to track students’progression in relation to start-up intentions, followed by in-depth interviews with a sub-sample of these students. For the EE programme, we utilised a ‘good practice’programme in the UK (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007), which includes formal input on entrepreneurship comprising several components: (1) a taught component that focuses on the entrepreneurial process, for example, the identification, recognition and creation of business opportunities; (2) a practical component that helps to develop the tools and skills that support the entrepreneurial journey; (3) a group-based component that allows students to select their best idea, turn it into a business plan and deliver a pitch to tutors; (4) areflective component that incorporates an individual portfolio of their entrepreneurial activities and development and (5) a broader business management component that includes topics such as finance, international business and organisational behaviour. For the non-EE programmes, we interviewed students from a range of business programmes that did not contain a formal entrepreneurship element. Sample and procedure The sample at Time 1 (t1) (2012/2013) comprised 619 FY students from EE and non- EE programmes. The sample at Time 2 (t2) (2013/2014) comprised 150 of the same students at t1 (the smaller sample size at t2 was largely the result of organisational constraints in terms of the provision of access to students). 2 The t2 sample therefore reflected all students who had completed the survey on the two occasions. Overall, ages ranged from 18 to 25 years, with 45% male and 55% female. 3 The segmentation of our sample led to a 2 × 2 matrix (see Table 1) according to the receipt/non-receipt of EE and the increase/decrease of entrepreneurial intentions. Those students who had scored highest in terms of intent change (absolute scores), both positive and negative, were chosen for interview (n= 49). This procedure led to a focus on ‘ideal types’, since ‘extreme’cases are more likely to display characteristics of interest in their purest form (Benton and Craib 2001). In an attempt to uncover the processes Table 1. Scenarios and entrepreneurial intention change. EE Non-EE Increased intention Scenario 1 45 surveyed (15 interviewed) Scenario 3 28 surveyed (12 interviewed) Decreased intention Scenario 2 31 surveyed (11 interviewed) Scenario 4 26 surveyed (11 interviewed) No change in intention 13 surveyed 7 surveyed 456 G. Nabi et al. associated with entrepreneurial learning and inspiration, these ideal types provide a useful heuristic device. Measures at time 1 In order to provide baseline measures at the start of the FYHE, the questionnaire comprised a measure of entrepreneurial intentions and several other background measures (e.g. gender, nationality, previous EE and work experience). Entrepreneurial intentions We used a 10-item 6-point Likert scale of entrepreneurial intentions, with 4 items used as distractors and 6 items comprising the actual scale. The measure is psychometrically sound, with demonstrated international validity and reliability (Thompson 2009). Questions started with ‘Thinking about yourself, how true or untrue is that you:’followed with, for example: ‘Intend to set up a company in the future’(Cronbach’s alpha = .721). Measures and interview at time 2 The quantitative data were collected through a questionnaire that focused on entrepreneurial intentions (same scale as in t1, Cronbach’s alpha = .734), entrepreneurial learning (alpha = .810), inspiration (alpha = .849) and other biographical data. Entrepreneurial learning (9 items) and inspiration (5 items) were measured using 6-point Likert scales (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007). An example of the former is: ‘To what extent did your first year at university: increase your understanding of the actions someone has to take in order to start a business (i.e. what needs to be done?)’. A sample item for the latter is: ‘In your first year at university, to what extent did any of the following particular events or inputs change drastically your “heart and mind”and make you seriously consider an entrepreneurial career?: The views of a tutor/ lecturer’. For the qualitative data, semi-structured interviews allowed students to narrate their experience of their FYHE. Students (on both EE and non-EE programmes) told their personal stories and expressed what was meaningful and important to them in relation to factors that motivated or deterred them from pursuing an entrepreneurial career path. This approach enabled us to gain a rich insight of students’own stories highlighting a coherent sense of continuity, discontinuity and self-change (Savickas 2002). The interviews focused, in particular, on critical experiences in the students’FYHE. For the participants who had received EE, the interviews focused on five key areas: (1) broad start-up plans; (2) positive incidents/situations during or because of their EE module that changed their ‘heart and mind’to intend to become an entrepreneur; (3) positive experience from other modules influencing their entrepreneurial intentions; (4) negative incidents/situations from their EE module that changed their ‘heart and mind’not to intend to become an entrepreneur and (5) negative experience from other modules influencing their entrepreneurial intentions. For the participants who had not received EE, the schedule covered areas 1, 3 and 5. To enable students to express their views freely, the interviewers sought to maintain as natural a conversational style as possible while ensuring that these key themes were addressed. Interviews lasted approximately 25–45 minutes. Studies in Higher Education 457 Data analysis strategy t-Test statistics were used to investigate differences between respondents at t1 and t2in each of the scenarios described above, with regard to learning, inspiration and entrepreneurial intention. 4 Qualitative data analysis software (NVivo) assisted the coding of interview transcripts. A preliminary pre-determined coding scheme was subsequently adapted based on the initial analysis of the transcripts (see Figure 1). An iterative process of independent coding and subsequent comparison and re-coding amongst three researchers led to consistency in applying the coding scheme. To ensure that we captured the overall narrative and understood the participants’overall story, we also provided a concise description of each case. Results and discussion Quantitative analysis Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics. Entrepreneurial intentions remain similar from t1tot2 (change in intention = −.018, not significant). Entrepreneurial intentions are significantly positively related to both learning and inspiration at t1 and t2. Figure 1. Coding hierarchy. Table 2. Means and correlations. Measure Mean (SD) Correlations 12345 1. Entrepreneurial intention time 1 3.540 (0.907) – 2. Entrepreneurial intention time 2 3.521 (0.931) .620*** – 3. Change entrepreneurial intention −.018 (0.802) −.412*** .460*** – 4. Entrepreneurial learning 4.710 (0.861) .234** .372*** .164* – 5. Entrepreneurial inspiration 3.781 (1.354) .217** .272** .068 .572** – Note: We also checked the relationships between the measures and background variables –age, gender, and work experience. No significant relationships are found, except for gender and time 2 intention. That is, males tend to increase their intention during the FHYE more than females do. *Significant at p< .05. ** Significant at p< .01. *** Significant at p< .001. 458 G. Nabi et al. Table 3 compares students participating and not participating in the EE programme. Before the programme, we found no differences in their intention levels. At t2, entrepreneurial intentions are marginally higher for those taking the EE programme. Entrepreneurial learning and inspiration, in turn, are significantly higher for those participating in the EE programme. When comparing the specific scenarios, we find a clearer explanation of the results (see Table 4). Scenario 1 is taken as the point of reference. Scenario 2 students initially have higher intention levels, but this decreases significantly during the FYHE. They report a similar level of inspiration, but significantly lower learning. In turn, Scenario 3 students have significantly lower intention levels at t1 and t2, and report significantly lower learning and inspiration. Qualitative analysis The qualitative analysis reveals a number of dimensions and underpinning sub-dimen- sions which we analyse in relation to the selected scenarios and our conceptual framework. 5 We also contrast scenarios from our sample, and explore the complex interplay of educational factors that influence entrepreneurial intentions in the FYHE. Types of entrepreneurial learning in the FYHE The first main dimension, types of entrepreneurial learning, incorporates two subdimensions: understanding the entrepreneurial process, and practical skills and Table 3. Mean differences by participation in EE programme. Measure Mean (SD) Mean Diff.EE Non-EE 1. Entrepreneurial intention time 1 3.626 (0.805) 3.453 (1.056) 0.173 2. Entrepreneurial intention time 2 3.683 (0.911) 3.398 (0.927) 0.285 † 3. Change entrepreneurial intention 0.057 (0.806) −0.056 (0.790) 0.112 4. Entrepreneurial learning 4.982 (0.826) 4.356 (0.806) 0.626*** 5. Entrepreneurial inspiration 4.119 (1.113) 3.295 (1.544) 0.824*** †Significant at p< .1. *** Significant at p< .001. Table 4. Comparing scenario 1 with scenarios 2 and 3. Measure Scenario 1 (reference) Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Mean Mean diff. Mean Mean diff. 1. Entrepreneurial intention time 1 3.385 3.979 −0.593** 2.982 0.403* 2. Entrepreneurial intention time 2 4.019 3.210 0.809*** 3.554 0.465* 3. Change entrepreneurial intention 0.633 −0.769 1.402*** 0.571 0.062 4. Entrepreneurial learning 5.148 4.736 0.412* 4.278 0.870*** 5. Entrepreneurial inspiration 4.227 3.942 0.285 2.938 1.289*** * Significant at p< .05. ** Significant at p< .01. *** Significant at p< .001. Studies in Higher Education 459 Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Notes 1. The distinction (enlightenment vs. neo-liberal) reflects two opposing philosophies of education. In the first, the purpose of education is to develop students as individuals, who then make their own decisions about their career, and in the second, the purpose of education is to create graduates to a politically determined model, to support politically defined (neo-liberal in this case) economic aims. 2. There were no significant differences between participants/non-participants in the follow up for gender, nationality, previous EE or work experience. 3. Detailed summary of respondent characteristics available from the authors on request. 4. In this paper, we focus on the comparison of Scenarios 1 and 2 (EE students whose intention increases vs decreases), and Scenarios 1 and 3 (EE vs non-EE students whose intention increases). Scenario 4 (non-EE-programme –intent decrease) students were not further examined in this study because comparing them with Scenario 1 did not make a meaningful contribution to our aim. 5. After qualitative analysis of Scenario 3 (non-EE, intent increase) students, we found very little that suggested any common themes or experiences. Furthermore, there were only a very few instances where Scenario 3 students mentioned learning or inspiration having increased their intentions. For these reasons, our discussion from this point only focuses on EE students whose intent increased or decreased (Scenarios 1 and 2). For both these scenarios, common themes and experiences emerged. 6. We replaced names of participants to anonymise identity. References Ajzen, Icek. 1991.“The Theory of Planned Behavior.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2): 179–211. Benton, T., and I. Craib. 2001.Philosophy of Social Science: Philosophical Issues in Social Thought. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Biesta, Gert. 2013.The Beautiful Risk of Education. Boulder: Paradigm. BIS. 2015.Fulfilling Our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), HMSO. Brooman, Simon, and Sue Darwent. 2014.“Measuring the Beginning: A Quantitative Study of the Transition to Higher Education.”Studies in Higher Education 39 (9): 1523–41. Cardon, Melissa, Maw-der Foo, Dean Shepherd, and Johan Wiklund. 2012.“Exploring the Heart: Entrepreneurial Emotion Is a Hot Topic.”Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36 (1): 1–10. Collins, Lorna, Paul D. Hannon, and Alison Smith. 2004.“Enacting Entrepreneurial Intent: The Gaps Between Student Needs and Higher Education Capability.”Education+ Training 46 (8/9): 454–63. Dearing, Ron. 1997.Higher Education in the Learning Society: The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. London: HMSO. DeGeorge, Jean Michel, and Alain Fayolle. 2008.“Is Entrepreneurial Intention Stable Through Time? First Insights from a Sample of French Students.”International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 5 (1): 7–27. Dewey, John. 1897.“My Pedagogic Creed: Article Two. What the School is.”The School LIV 3: 77–80. EU. 2012.Effects and Impact of Entrepreneurship Programmes in Higher Education. Brussels: European Commission. Fayolle, Alain, Benoît Gailly, and Narjisse Lassas-Clerc. 2006.“Assessing the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education Programmes: A New Methodology.”Journal of European Industrial Training 30 (9): 701–20. Fretschner, Michael, and Susanne Weber. 2013.“Measuring and Understanding the Effects of Entrepreneurial Awareness Education.”Journal of Small Business Management 51 (3): 410–28. 466 G. Nabi et al. Gilbert, David H. 2012.“From Chalk and Talk to Walking the Walk: Facilitating Dynamic Learning Contexts for Entrepreneurship Students in Fast-Tracking Innovations.” Education+Training 54 (2/3): 152–66. Greene, Francis J., and George Saridakis. 2008.“The Role of Higher Education Skills and Support in Graduate Self-Employment.”Studies in Higher Education 33 (6): 653–72. Honig, Benson. 2004.“Entrepreneurship Education: Toward a Model of Contingency-Based Business Planning.”Academy of Management Learning and Education 3 (3): 258–73. Jackson, Denise. 2015.“Employability Skill Development in Work-Integrated Learning: Barriers and Best Practice.”Studies in Higher Education 40 (2): 350–67. Johannisson, Bengt. 1991.“University Training for Entrepreneurship: Swedish Approaches.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 3 (1): 67–82. Leitch Review of Skills. 2006.Prosperity for All in the Global Economy –World Class Skills. Final report. London: HMSO/HM Treasury. Lemmink, Jos, Annelien Schuijf, and Sandra Streukens. 2003.“The Role of Corporate Image and Company Employment Image in Explaining Application Intentions.”Journal of Economic Psychology 24 (1): 1–15. Liñán, Francisco, Juan Moriano, and Inmaculada Jaén. 2016.“Individualism and Entrepreneurship: Does the Pattern Depend on the Social Context?”International Small Business Journal. Liñán, Francisco, David Urbano, and Maribel Guerrero. 2011.“Regional Variations in Entrepreneurial Cognitions: Start-up Intentions of University Students in Spain.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 23 (3–4): 187–215. Lorz, Michael, Susan Mueller, and Thierry Volery. 2013.“Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Review of the Methods in Impact Studies.”Journal of Enterprising Culture 21 (2): 123–51. Majumdar, Sudipa, and Damodharan Varadarajan. 2013.“Students’Attitude Towards Entrepreneurship: Does Gender Matter in the UAE?”Foresight 15 (4): 278–93. Nabi, Ghulam, Rick Holden, and Andreas Walmsley. 2010.“Entrepreneurial Intentions Among Students: Towards a Re-Focused Research Agenda.”Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 17 (4): 537–51. Nabi, Ghulam, and Francisco Liñán. 2013.“Considering Business Start-up in Recession Time: The Role of Risk Perception and Environmental Context in Shaping the Entrepreneurial Intent.”International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research 19 (6): 633–55. Oosterbeek, Hessel, Mirjam Van Praag, and Auke Ijsselstein. 2010.“The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurship Skills and Motivation.”European Economic Review 54 (3): 442–54. Pittaway, Luke, and Jason Cope. 2007.“Entrepreneurship Education a Systematic Review of the Evidence.”International Small Business Journal 25 (5): 479–510. Sarasvathy, Saras D. 2001.“Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency.”Academy of management Review 26 (2): 243–63. Savickas, Mark L. 2002.Career Construction: A Developmental Theory of Vocational Behaviour, Career Choice and Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Shapero, Albert, and Lisa Sokol. 1982.“The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship”.In Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship, edited by C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, and K. H. Vesper, 72–90. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Smith, Kelly, and Martin Beasley. 2011.“Graduate Entrepreneurs: Intentions, Barriers and Solutions.”Education+Training 53 (8/9): 722–40. Souitaris, Vangelis, Stefania Zerbinati, and Andreas Al-Laham. 2007.“Do Entrepreneurship Programmes Raise Entrepreneurial Intention of Science and Engineering Students? The Effect of Learning, Inspiration and Resources.”Journal of Business venturing 22 (4): 566–91. Thompson, Edmund R. 2009.“Individual Entrepreneurial Intent: Construct Clarification and Development of an Internationally Reliable Metric.”Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33 (3): 669–94. Thrash, Todd M., and Andrew J. Elliot. 2003.“Inspiration as a Psychological Construct.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (4): 871–89. Von Graevenitz, Georg, Dietmar Harhoff, and Richard Weber. 2010.“The Effects of Entrepreneurship Education.”Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 76 (1): 90–112. Studies in Higher Education 467