Entrepreneurship in a wider societal context

Transcription

1 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 Discussant: Linda Höglund, PhD, Örebro University Supervisors: Yvonne Eriksson, Professor, Mälardalen University and Maria Mårtensson Hansson, Associate professor, Stockholm University

2 Table of contents 1.Introduction Background Outline of the mid-way proposal Problem statement, research aim and objective Research questions Scope and contributions Entrepreneurship and school Entrepreneurship Societal entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship education Learning Method and research considerations Results Discussion References Appended papers... 48

3 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

4 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

5 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

6 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 titles 1 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 8 th ICEIRD conference in June 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

7 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

8 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 (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

9 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

10 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

11 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

12 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

13 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

14 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

15 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

16 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 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

17 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), Backström- Widjeskog (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

18 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

19 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

20 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 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

21 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

22 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

23 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

24 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 Data collection Study Paper/Report 1,2 Document study, semiconducted A Paper I interviews, participative meetings, observations 1,2 Critical incidents B Paper II questionnaire, in-depth interview 1,2 Text analysis, document study, participative meetings C Report I 22

25 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

26 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

27 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

28 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

29 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

30 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

31 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

32 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

33 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 skills Entrepreneurial Learning Effects A changed perspective on teaching Figure 1. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship in lower secondary school 31

34 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

35 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

36 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

37 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