Content uploaded by Jose M. Ramos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jose M. Ramos on Mar 08, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship1
Vol. 11, No. 3 (2006) 1–25
© World Scientific Publishing Company
3
EMPOWERING ENTREPRENEURSHIP THROUGH FORESIGHT AND
INNOVATION: DEVELOPING A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR
5
EMPOWERMENT IN ENTERPRISE PROGRAMS
ALLAN O’CONNOR7
The Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship
Swinburne University of Technology
9
Wakefield and William Streets
Hawthorn VIC 3122, Australia
11
JOSE M. RAMOS
Centre for Social Change Research
13
Queensland University of Technology
c/- 50 Biddlecombe Ave, Corio VIC 3214, Australia
15
Received May 2006
Revised July 2006
17
This study explores how education and development in the skills and knowledge of foresight, innovation
and enterprise (FI and E) relate to the empowerment of young individuals with respect to creating a new
19
venture. In 2003, three groups of young persons aged between 13 and 18 years participated in a program
designed for empowerment. An evaluation was conducted nine months later that provided useful insight
21
into the impact of the education design, content and delivery. This research provides deeper insight into
the way FI and E education can be used to create empowerment through the derivation of a framework
23
that addresses entry, process and agency factors.
Keywords: Empowerment; foresight; innovation; enterprise; entrepreneurship; youth program.
25
1. Introduction
The Questacon “Smart Moves Invention Convention” (QSIC) has become an annual event
27
organized by Smart Moves, the outreach team of Questacon, The National Science and
Technology Centre, in Canberra, Australia. It is a five-day program designed to provide
29
rural Australian youth aged from13 to 18 years the opportunity to share ideas about science
and technology and to gain skills in new enterprise development. The initial program, called
31
the “Invention Convention,” was conceived through a partnership between the Australian
Graduate School of Entrepreneurship (AGSE), the Australian Foresight Institute (AFI), and
33
Questacon Smart Moves (QSM). In light of the results from a qualitative post-evaluation, the
contributing partners from AGSE and AFI, who were the primary designers and facilitators,
35
have combined in this paper to reflect on the program’s design and efficacy in achieving its
“empowerment” aim.
37
1
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
2A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
The QSIC incorporated an experiential learning process in the conception and design of1
an enterprise. Honig (2001) found that entrepreneurstend to use flexible and adaptive learn-
ing strategies, while Cope and Watts (2000) and Politis (2005) emphasized the importance
3
of “learning by doing” for entrepreneurs. The process and value of experiential learning
has also been well, established by Kolb (1984). In 2003, the inaugural QSIC was designed
5
and delivered to fifteen selected participants. During the five-day program, they were chal-
lenged to develop scenarios of probable and preferred futures, develop innovations within
7
these contexts and translate these innovations into enterprise concepts. These concepts were
then presented to invited mentors, known for their innovation and experience in establishing
9
new ventures. The group learning process was complemented by personal journaling during
allotted free time. Expressing our own position, that entrepreneurship should aim to create
11
new value for society along multiple dimensions, the program emphasized reflecting on how
“value” is situated within diverse value systems, and on how innovation processes help to
13
create value and/or address problems within complexsocial contexts. Ramos and O’Connor
(2003) found that the inclusion of foresight processes into a program had the effect of cre-
15
ating ventures with broader contextual social views while being aimed at achieving added
economic value and/or sustainability.
17
This study explores the role of foresight, innovation and enterprise (FI and E) education
and its relationship to empowermentusing the case of the pilot QSIC in September/October
19
2003. The study is dividedinto three sections. First, we review the literature to draw together
perspectives on empowerment through the fields of foresight, innovation, entrepreneurship
21
and enterprise programs. Second, informed by a post-evaluation of the QSIC program, we
explore the tacit and explicit assumptions about empowerment by using a first person action
23
research approach that reveals unanticipated consequences, barriers and misconceptions.
The third section highlights findings and proposes a more considered framework for devel-
25
oping empowerment through FI and E, before concluding and suggesting future research
directions.
27
2. Perspectives on Empowerment
2.1. Empowerment and foresight
29
Gidley (2004) has conducted extensive research on the link between futures research/studies
and youth empowerment and shows strong connections between foresight and youth empow-
31
erment. Most crucially, she emphasizes how futures studies and visioning processes for
youth need to be linked with opportunities for action. Gidley (2001) has also cited evidence
33
that suggests facilitating positive images of the future for youth is effective in dealing with
depression and even in lowering the incidence of suicide among youth. Further, she shows
35
that previous research has linked hopelessness with “the inability to control outcomes,
whether good or bad” (Gidley, 2001; emphasis added). In other words, helplessness or a
37
lack of agency is associated with issues of hopelessness (Abramson, Metalsky and Alloy,
1989). Agency then may be considered a primary outcome of empowerment.
39
Hicks (2002) showed that learning about global futures triggered a distinct psycholog-
ical process in a student and the five stages of the psychological process were: cognitive,
41
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 3
affective, existential,empowered and action. In the first stage, he claimed that students1
intellectualized the dimensions of global futures, which included learning about concepts
and ideas, such as globalization, global issues and challenges. As the student progressed,
3
frustration ensued with the complexity of the issues, and sadness, worry and anxiety fol-
lowed over the state of the world and their dystopic implications, which were constituted
5
in the affective stage. This often led to re-assessment of the students’ own place in the
world and challenged their assumptions about their own lives. This existential stage was a
7
potential turning point where students began to integrate their concerns about global futures
into their lives. The empowerment stage was where students found sources of inspiration,
9
innovation and renewal that gave them a sense of hope, motivation and direction. In the
last stage, action, students were socially empowered to find new relationships, networks,
11
practices, behaviors and projects that addressed their concerns about global futures. The
empowerment and action stages, where the condition for positive action is created, make
13
implicit links to innovation and entrepreneurship. However, this is often where the work in
foresight ends and perhaps this suggests a form of social empowerment or agency may be
15
one prerequisite to entrepreneurship.
If students can be socially empowered through developing foresight capacity, it is nec-
17
essary to consider the implications for the broader social setting. Laveman (2000) identified
a macrosystemic approach to empowering adolescents and considered empowerment as a
19
nested system, whereby the individual is but one system complete in and of itself while being
contained within larger systems and structures. For example, adolescents are nested within
21
family, school and community systems, each impacting upon the individual. Laveman (2000)
identified eight so-called life domains: residential, family, social, educational, vocational,
23
medical, psychological and legal, all of which affect the empowerment of adolescents. This
concept has substantial implications when one considers the breadth and depth of influence
25
that may be required in the task of achieving empowerment for individuals.
It would seem that little substantive work from the foresight perspective has been done
27
to examine the link between FI and E, in particular with respect to the empowerment of
youth. Despite this, it can be said that effecting agency is not only considered an integral
29
aspect of empowerment from a futures research/studies perspective, but appears to blaze a
trail toward activities encompassing innovation and entrepreneurship.
31
2.2. Empowerment and innovation
The coincidence of the concepts of empowermentand innovation are largely found in orga-
33
nizational management theory, where empowerment is examined as a process through the
context of innovation within an organizational environment (Dooley and Sullivan, 2001;
35
Sundbo, 1999). Sustaining corporate entrepreneurship also relies on internal organizational
factors such as work discretion and autonomy (Kuratko, Hornsby and Goldsby, 2004).
37
The organization is responsible for inducing innovation through human resource manage-
ment practices, development of competencies in employees and organizational development.
39
Empowerment is utilized as a decentralizing agent for innovation within the context of the
organization (Kanter, 1984; Roffe, 1999). Morgan (1997) also highlights the self-reinforcing
41
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
4A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
nature of empowerment whereby the experience of success becomes a transforming and1
energizing force that encourages further progress and success.
Empowerment within these contexts might be termed organizational empowerment.
3
However, Lincoln, Travers, Ackers and Wilkinson (2002) claim that the term empowerment
in the organizational context is surrounded by a tangled web of meanings and consequently,
5
is laden with misunderstanding and tension. Seibert, Silver and Randolph (2004) address
some of this confusion. They distinguish differencesbetween an empowerment climate in the
7
organizational setting and the psychological empowerment of individuals. Empowerment,
when viewed through the innovation lens, seems to converge on distinctions between the
9
level of individuals and their social setting and, more particularly, the organizational context.
2.3. Empowerment and entrepreneurship
11
Empowerment in the field of entrepreneurship is most commonly featured in literature on
minority or disadvantaged groups. For instance, Kantor (2002) highlights that empowerment
13
should be included as a measure when assessing the success of women in South Asian micro-
enterprise. Kantor (2002) argues that mere economic indicators are insufficient if the aim
15
of an intervention is to both improve the economic position and the control of the proceeds
of micro-enterprise. This suggests that the goal of enterprise programs, in some instances
17
at least, have greater ambitions than just stimulating economic activity, and holds concerns
with equality, rights, power and domination. Kantor (2002) further suggests that “[I]t is
19
important to stress that empowerment outcomes are not only relevant within developing
nations where gender and other forms of inequalities are often patent. Economic inequality
21
and constraints on opportunities for marginalized groups also are common in developed
nations.” For instance, Osborne, Falcone and Nagendra (2000) offer a case study of an
23
entrepreneurship intervention for the unemployed in the USA, while Martin and Wright
(2005) have explored the role of information and communication technologies to empower
25
female entrepreneurs in the UK. This form of empowerment focuses on the individuals’
abilities to control their own destiny and, for our purposes, may be referred to as self-enabled
27
empowerment.
While Kantor’s (2002) view is one of outcomes, Krueger and Brazeal (1994) called
29
for educators, consultants and policy advisers to help empower potential entrepreneurs to
seize opportunities presented in their environment. They presented the case for building
31
empowerment as an enabling process. Indeed, Kantor (2002) summarized this position
through the eyes of the two authors Kabeer and Kishor (cited in Kantor, 2002). The former
33
focused on the end-product of empowerment thatis found in evidence that suggests increased
control, choice and decision-making, while the latter drew our attention to the enabling
35
processes, which included education and income or assets that increased control and choice.
An example of empowering processes isfound in Le Breton-Miller, Miller and Steier (2004),
37
who reviewed the succession literature for family-owned businesses. They reported that the
transfer of stock to a new incumbent “should start immediately after succession in order to
39
empower the new leader” (emphasis added). Here, the process of providing a sufficient equity
holding to the successor is consideredat least partly responsible for leading to empowerment.
41
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 5
Another example is offered through the provision of micro-credit (Johnson, 1998), where1
people are empowered by gaining access to credit otherwise unavailable to them at market
rates. Empowerment then can be viewed from at least two perspectives: one of process and
3
the other of outcome.
2.4. Empowerment in enterprise programs
5
Enterprise and entrepreneurshipare two closely related concepts (Cromie, 2000). However,
Atherton (2004) portrays a useful distinction when he claims that “enterprise incorporates
7
entrepreneurship as a state (being an entrepreneur) and a behavior (being entrepreneurial) as
well as the wider enabling and disabling conditions and structures.” This implies that enter-
9
prise programs have broad responsibilities that include not only encouraging individuals to
be entrepreneurs, in the sense of owning a business, but also developing a set of dynamic
11
“entrepreneurial” behaviors, such as those described by Athayde (2003) — leadership, cre-
ativity, intuitiveness, personal control and high achievement. In addition, it suggests that an
13
enterprise program should be congruent with the wider set of environmentalconditions and
structures.
15
Entrepreneurship education has been reported to have had a positive influence on
entrepreneurial tendency (Henderson and Robertson, 1999; Lüthje and Franke, 2002;
17
Rasheed, 2002; Sexton and Bowman, 1983). However, the tendency or inclination toward
entrepreneurship appears to have coupled or multiple links between education and individ-
19
ual personality characteristics (Lüthje and Franke, 2002), cognitive infrastructure (Krueger,
2000; Mitchell et al., 2002ab) as well as social context and cultural values (Mitchell et al.,
21
2002ab). Further, .Wang, Wong and Lu (1999)found support for a complex three stage model
that took into account key demographic, educational, motivational attitude and perceived
23
interest and feasibility factors.
Hansemark (1998) indicated positive increases in “need for achievement” and “internal
25
locus of control” from a study of a 36-week entrepreneurship program. Later, Peterman
(2000) conducted an Australian study to find a positive increase in secondary school stu-
27
dents’ attitudes toward desirability and feasibility for starting a business. However,Peterman
and Kennedy (2003) drew attention to the wide variety of entrepreneurship programs on
29
offer in the market place and suggested that, while positive results may be found from one
study, they could not suggest that all programs would have the same result due to variations
31
in content, pedagogy and learning styles. This observation is consistent with Falkäng and
Alberti (2000), who claimed that there was little uniformity in content and approach among
33
courses, and that entrepreneurship education research needed further development, a view
echoed by Greene, Katz and Johannisson (2004).
35
During the extant literature review, little has been discovered relating specifically to
youth empowerment through the context of foresight, innovation and enterprise programs.
37
The National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE) does however conduct
useful evaluation of their programs through an association with the Harvard University
39
Graduate School of Education. Findings from a 2002–2003 study showed an increase in
the internal locus of control experienced by the participants in the NFTE program when
41
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
6A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
compared to a control group sample (Nakkula et al., 2004). However, the Executive Sum-1
mary report only speculates on the reason for this difference and reveals nothing about
the process and content that may deliver this positive change. Overall, we have found an
3
absence of research in this area and moreover, we have provided evidence of a potential
synergy between foresight, innovation and entrepreneurship that could lead to dynamic
5
outcomes.
The results of an evaluation of the 2003 QSIC conducted independently by Questacon
7
Smart Moves presented an opportunity for an examination of the issues incorporated in
bringing empowerment to rural youth in a developed country. More specifically, it provided
9
the authors of this paper the occasion to reflect on their educational practice and bring
to account the issues that were incorporated in both the successes and deficiencies of the
11
program with respect to empowerment. At least in part, this case study addresses the call
by Harrison and Leitch (2005) for further research on the relationship between content and
13
process in entrepreneurship education.
3. Methodology
15
Our research design incorporated theory-building as an inductive process (Mintzberg, 1979;
Eisenhardt, 1989),working from the data to producea theoretical empowerment framework.
17
However, Strauss and Corbin (1998) highlight that, while a “grounded” theory incorporates
an inductive step, it is then complemented by interpretation informed by a researcher’s life
19
experiences and accumulated knowledge base. They argue that this complementary step is a
deductive process and therefore, the process of building theory interplays between the data
21
and the researcher using inductive and deductive practices.
In accordance with this view, our research endeavor is located in the interpretive tradi-
23
tion. We embarked upon primarily an inductive process of extensive reflexive engagement
between the data and ourselves. It addresses a social structural theory and is not an attempt
25
at empirical generalization. Stake (2003) argues that case study-based research is a con-
textualizing process, which situates a “bounded” object of study within historical, cultural,
27
physical, social, economic, political, ethical and aesthetic dimensions. Yin (1994) makes
the point that particular cases can be used to generalize to theory but should not be mistak-
29
enly used to generalize to other cases. Yin further notes that a single case can represent a
significant contribution to knowledge and theory-building when it tests what is considered
31
to be well-formulated theory.
The method involved engaging with the data in two stages of analysis utilizing two dif-
33
ferent techniques. First, drawing on the collected third party evaluation comments, content
analysis was used to document, in objective and quantitative terms, whether the unsystem-
35
atic observation of empowerment was clearly evidential (Neuman, 1994). The participant
comments from the post-evaluation were systematically themed and coded against the con-
37
cepts of empowerment that were articulated in the aims of the QSIC. This first level of
analysis revealed gaps in our perception of empowerment and unexplained outcomes with
39
respect to our stated design aims.
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 7
The second stage of analysis applied a first person action research (Torbert, 2001; Reason1
and Bradbury, 2002) technique to address thesedeficits and deficiencies and to better under-
stand the effects of the QSIC’s design and to learn from our experiences of developing the
3
QSIC process and content. Senge and Scharmer (2001) state that reflecting on past expe-
riences is one mode of learning, and that “all learning cycles are variations of this type of
5
[reflective] learning.”
4. The Questacon Invention Convention Empowerment Design
7
The Questacon Smart Moves charter for the youth program was meant to assist those aged
from 13 to 18 years from rural communities by providing them an opportunity to combine
9
and share experiences and ideas about science and technology and to gain practical skills
in developing new business enterprise initiatives. Participant selection for the program was
11
based upon an application that outlined an “inventive” idea and demonstration of a strong
desire to pursue the development of the invention. The primary program purposes were to
13
decrease the impediment of isolation perceived by rural communities and provide access to
skills and services as well as connectivity and empowerment.
15
The AGSE and AFI collaborative developmentproposal offeredto combine the expertise
in entrepreneurship and innovation education developedby the AGSE and AFI with Questa-
17
con’s access and experience with the rural youth communities in a five day workshop-style
“Convention” held during theSeptember school term break of 2003. The preliminary discus-
19
sion between the parties (AGSE, AFI and QSM) resolved that the QSIC held an overriding
aim to provide a select group of young Australian entrepreneurs with a support network of
21
peers and mentors and new ways of thinking that would enable them to develop progressive
ideas commercially. The educational design was to place an emphasis on empowerment
23
and it was agreed that empowerment in the educational sense would mean the participants’
increased ability to:
25
•Differentiate ideas from opportunities: Aid participants in the ability to move across many
ideas more fluidly, in a grander context of opportunity thinking;
27
•Understand that which creates and sustains value: Increase contextual and creative think-
ing through a deeper understanding of what is value for people and for society in general;
29
•Operate within a team: Give the participants experience in teamwork, which facilitates
interpersonal development and social empowerment;
31
•Package concepts and present opportunities: Increase the ability of participants to effec-
tively communicate their ideas through presentation and communication skills;
33
•Integrate the fundamentals of marketing, finance, and legal requirements for a start up
business: Develop their capacity to run a start up business through practical business skills
35
and knowledge.
Both content and process were used as organizing concepts. We felt strongly that it
37
would have been inauthentic to present FI and E as a “pedestrian” activity and we attempted
to simulate the profound challenges faced by innovators and entrepreneurs in bringing new
39
value into the world. The educational design intended to enhance aspects of skills and
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
8A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
knowledge through the provision of content on the tools and useful analytical frameworks,1
while the processes were intended to inspire positive attitudes toward foresight, innovation
and enterprise. The breadth and depth of the content amounted to a crash course on FI and
3
E that would profoundly expand the cognitive horizons of participants. The process of the
QSIC was an experiential action learning “baptism by fire” approach that resembled an FI
5
and E boot camp intended to challenge them to rise to the occasion of developing ventures
in complex social contexts. The thinking was partly inspired by a youth program operated
7
by the international organization Outward Bound that challenges participants in wilderness
adventures using outdoor activities as tools designed “to help people discover and develop
9
their potential to care for themselves, others and the world around them through challenging
experiences in unfamiliar settings” (Outward Bound Australia, 2002). The content and
11
processes delivered in the five days have been summarized in Figure 1.
Following the program’s design principles, we integrated complex content from higher
13
education into experiential learning processes deliberately aimed at students of a higher
level of maturity and academic skill than that of the participant age range. The partici-
15
pants were encouraged to respond and were supported throughout the five days by their
peer groups, mentors and facilitators to achieve something beyond what they would have
17
normally encountered in a school environment. By the end of the five days, the noticeable
maturity of the participants in developing and delivering complex venture designs seemed
19
Foresight Innovation Entrepreneurship
CONTENT:
Skills and
Knowledge
PROCESS:
Attitudes and
Motivation
•Emerging issues
analysis
•Environmental
scanning
•Values, Mission
Vision
•‘Know thyself’
•Foresight
•Business
planning
•Managing
money
•Budgeting
•Negotiating
•Intelligence
•Values, ethics and
issues in innovation
•Being a team player
•Value systems
•Audacity
•Imagination
•Maturity in
taking criticism
•Communication
•Commercial
savvy
•Lateral
thinking
•Divergent
thinking
•Metaphoric
thinking
•Creativity
tools
Fig. 1. Dimensions of foresight, innovation and entrepreneurship education for empowerment.
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 9
to vindicate our efforts, and anecdotal comments from the participants suggested high levels1
of satisfaction with their achievements.
5. Analysis of the Third Party Report
3
Upon leaving the QSIC, the young people returned to their normal home and school lives
armed with new skills that were intended to empower them to pursue their individual new
5
venture projects. Nine months later, an independent third party conducted an evaluation to
assess the sustained success of the QSIC intervention and to make recommendations for the
7
2004 QSIC. The third party evaluators gathered qualitative data via telephone interviews
with as many participants as were available (ten of the fifteen). Each delegate contacted was
9
asked a series of probing questions relating to aspects of the conference. The comments
that were considered related to empowerment were drawn from the areas of questioning
11
provided in Appendix A.
The results of this evaluation were shared with the authors by QSM. The extensive
13
comments seemed to provide a useful insight into the impact of the education design,
content and delivery on the stated aim of empowering these young individuals, and it offered
15
a rich source for analysis and reflection on the concept of empowerment within this type
of enterprise education intervention. QSM agreed and granted permission to the authors to
17
conduct further analysis.
To confirm our casual observations, we first applied content analysis to the qualitative
19
data in the report. The comments were systematically themed against the five stated empow-
erment aims of the education component of the 2003 QSIC and each were allocated as either
21
a positive or a negative reflection of our aims. In this process, we discovered some comments
that seemed focused on empowerment but were not attributable to any of the empowerment
23
aims of the educational component of the program. These were simply listed as unallocated
comments and as either positive or negative.
25
Table 1 summarizes the results of the content analysis. It was clear that many more
comments surfaced on the positive side of the ledger for all areas except the unallocated
27
comments. While this was comforting from an evaluation perspective, it also prompted fur-
ther exploration of the negative and unallocated comments for breakdowns in our conception
29
of empowerment and causes of any failure to deliver empowerment to the participants.
Table 1. Summary of content analysis.
No. of Positive No. of Negative
Comments Comments
Differentiate ideas from opportunities 12 4
Understand that which creates and sustains value 3 0
Operate within a team 3 1
Package concepts and present opportunities 3 1
Integrate the fundamentals of marketing, finance and
legal requirements for a start-up business
84
Unallocated comments 3 5
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
10 A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
6. Analysis by First Person Reflection1
The subsequent discussion of the content analysis identified that the positive unallocated
comments, while not being formal and articulated aims, were certainly intended outcomes.
3
This forced the view that perhaps there were more tacit and unexpressed aims at work in the
preparation and delivery of the program than was immediately obvious. It was then decided
5
that a second level of analysis should be conducted utilizing an action learning, first person
reflective method of recalling or recounting past actions through the lens of an inquiry
7
framework. Imposing a two-way relationship between the data and the inquirer through an
inquiry framework is also referred to as reflexive practice (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2000).
9
To facilitate this process, four questions were established (refer to Appendix B) to which
the two researchers independently responded in writing before combining again to analyze
11
the responses further.
The reflexive work was then combined with a review of the original design, process
13
flow and content of the QSIC to assemble an explicit perspective on the development and
delivered QSIC format. Following rigorous discussion, a more complete expression of the
15
program’saims was then condensed into four main points, namely: Values, Process, Content
and Support. A summary of the outcome is provided following the questions listed in
17
Appendix B. The original approach to the design was emergent and adaptive as the two
designers and developers of the program grew in awareness of the fields of expertise offered
19
by the other and the requirements and expectations of QSM were fully absorbed. Figure 2
shows the results of the reflexive analysis that reveal the tacit and explicit influences of
21
empowerment built into the QSIC 2003.
To progress the exploration, the unallocated and negative comments from the content
23
analysis were coded with an empowerment concept in an attempt to identify its source. The
analysis identified seven concepts that were unaccounted for in the education empowerment
25
aims. On the positive side, Confidence and Inspiration were associated with factors of an
empowering belief that an individual could make thingshappen. On the negative side, factors
27
such as: School being too time consuming and demanding; an inability to grasp the Practical
Application of that which was provided; Parental Demands and lack of agreement and
29
permission prevented action on projects; the Advanced Materials delivered in the QSIC were
suggested to be discouraging; and a Preference to Ones’ Own Ideas rather than group process
31
were each identified as potentially disempowering concepts that were either intentionally
or unintentionally incorporated in the program.
33
7. Findings and Implications
With this more complete picture and meaning of empowerment for the QSIC program
35
design, we turned to consider the seven concepts that emerged from the unallocated and
negative points and to draw inferences for youth enterprise programs.
37
First, the unaccounted positive points relating to Self-Confidence and Inspiration were
easily attributable to the design of the program despite the fact that they were not explicit
39
aims. Self-Confidence was promoted through the challenging aspect of the design, which was
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 11
OVERALL PROCESS
(EMPOWERMENT THROUGH
CHALLENGING AND
CHARACTER BUILDING)
Team work
Challenge
Action
Reflection
Learning
Character building
•
•
•
•
•
•
CONTENT MODULES
(EMPOWERMENT THROUGH
ENABLING, SKILLING &
KNOWLEDGE)
Scenario building
Networking
Creativity skills and lateral
thinking
Environmental scanning
Industry 5 forces analysis
Marketing/5 P’s
Research
Business planning/venture
finance
Managing
money/budgeting
Negotiating
Intelligence gathering
Intellectual Property
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TACIT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
(EMPOWERMENT AFFECTED THROUGH
a priori ASSUMPTIONS AND VALUES)
Dominant self-interest should be avoided
Foresight opens multiple value perspectives — scientific-
technical, moral and aesthetic
Enterprise should be founded on explicit values and
motives
Skills are required to m
•
•
•
•anage multiple value propositions
CONTINUED SUPPORT
(EMPOWERMENT THROUGH POINTS OF
REFERENCE AND CONTACTS)
Encouraged acquisition of local level mentor
Communication network of peers and QSIC mentors
W
•
•
•orkbook and reference materials for reflection and
contacts
Fig. 2. Reflexive summary QSIC empowerment influences.
always aimed at being achievable, through peer group and program support. Nonetheless,1
the tasks were not made easy, which brings about a point of balance in such a program; set
the challenges too high and the designers risk damaging the confidence of the participants,
3
too low and the participants would not experiencethe sense of achievement that is important
for empowerment. Conger and Kanungo (1988)raised these issues in their discussion of the
5
organizational setting in a review of theory and noted that enactive attainment — achieving
and succeeding through actual experience — would likely be one of the most effective means
7
of improving employees’ self-efficacy. The QSIC program was designed for participant
enactive achievement; however, in a mixed age and ability program such as the QSIC, the
9
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
12 A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
risk was ever presentof damaging the self confidence of some participantsas they struggled1
with concepts due to an under-developed level of mental agility.
In the QSIC program, this was largely countered through the support and group process.
3
Even so, the comment from one participant that said “[T]he lectures about taking your idea
to reality were too advanced for people, which was a little discouraging ‘cos they then think
5
it is so big and hard” was associated with a negative comment coded Advanced Materials.
It is then apparent that we were not able to fully ameliorate this aspect, although it should
7
be noted that the comment was made by a participant that also stated “as I have started a
small business myself and I used the notes on helping me to work out my break even point,”
9
suggests that despite being difficult, it was still accessible and useful. This highlights the
critical role of support and balance within the program design when integrating challenge
11
into a program through Advanced Materials and also suggests that even though participants
may find it hard, they can and do actually learn.
13
The concept of Inspiration was an implicit aim of the program that was not well-designed
into the education component, although the structural influence provided by QSM is likely to
15
have been responsible. Inspiration occurred mostly through the involvement of the mentors
as evidenced by the comment “[B]eing in a room with people who had actually achieved
17
their dream was very inspiring.” Here, it appears that empowerment is achieved at the pro-
cess level where the participants can visualize success through the eyes of those who have
19
already achieved.This highlights the importanceof story and narrative in the transmission of
experience. Each mentorcame to the program with a particular story about the successes and
21
challenges faced as an entrepreneur. In terms of inspiring the participants, techniques and
business content would seem to be a poor substitute for such first hand storytelling and
23
human bonds. In fact, different participants were attracted to different mentors and this
demonstrates how a diversity of mentor stories helped to engage and energize the imagina-
25
tions of the participants. This is an important part of cognition, where the participant begins
to think through models that would achieve the enterprise goal. However, it does not follow
27
necessarily that transference occurs, whereby the individual believes or holds the attitude
that they themselves can achieve. Combining cognition and attitude was achieved through
29
the Action part of the program, where the participant experienced the process of enterprise
achievement — working through the enterprise model to increase positive attitudes.
31
Two of the negative accounts of empowerment, Practical Application and Advanced
Materials, were designed into the program and clearly, there was some sort of deficiency.
33
This is thought to be partly due to the disparity in age and abilities and partly due to the
attitudes of the participants as they entered the QSIC. For instance, the Practical Application
35
point also received positive comments such as “A lot of it was relevant, especially when
you went home to use it.” On a fuller analysis, the participants expressing the particular
37
negative comments on Practical Application were also critical of the group process and
were attached to another negative code Preference to Ones’ Own Ideas. This suggests that
39
setting the expectations of individuals and screening for congruent attitudes and motivations
with the program are also important points toward delivering empowermentthrough a QSIC
41
type process. If a participant arrives with the wrong expectation, and consequently does not
adjust or adapt, the efficacy of the program for that particular individual will be less.
43
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 13
The remaining points of negative account were not within the confines of the QSIC1
empowerment design. School and Parental Demands are both systems beyond the reach of
the QSIC. Here then, the role of macrosystemic systems referred to by Laveman (2000)
3
play a part and intervene with any empowerment that may be established within an external
education intervention.
5
Our findings revealed that the planning, design and implementation of the QSIC did not
originate from a thoroughly r esearched definition of empowerment. Various tacit definitions
7
and interpretations of empowerment were present throughout. Empowerment in this context
emerged as a complex interlocking set of processes and factors, as represented by Figure 1,
9
and was not reducible to a single pathway of causality. We found issues embedded in the
entry and expectations of participants that hampered empowerment that may be similar to
11
issues raised in the organizational literature on the disempowering effect of employee role
ambiguity (Honold, 1997). We also encountered elements within the process and outcome
13
factors affecting agency that were consistent with our earlier literature review.
8. Toward an Empowerment Framework
15
This concluding section aims to outline each of the dimensions of empowerment that
emerged through the analysis of the QSIC intervention; show how empowerment can be a
17
legitimate aim of such an educational intervention; and discuss certain guideposts in entry,
process and agency conditions portrayed through a theoretical framework that can be used
19
by others wanting to develop similar educational interventions.
8.1. Entry and process conditions
21
The first points of consideration might be that of the individual level and human capacities.
It seems that programs may focus on developing particular types of human capacity — for
23
instance skills and knowledge — and neglect other aspects of human dimensions that are
central to empowerment. Through our analysis, we have encountered three types of human
25
conditions (skills and knowledge, attitudes and motivation, and cognition) that were integral
to the empowerment process and possibly have inferences for entry into a program. These
27
also seem to relate to and aid the progression through the first three psychological changes
proffered by Hicks (2002). Furthermore, there appears to be some links to the different levels
29
of learning, as portrayed by Burgoyne and Hodgson (1983), and these will be discussed.
8.1.1. Skills and knowledge
31
The teaching of concrete skills that allow participants to express forms of agency can
be seen as one pathway toward empowerment. As helplessness has been correlated with
33
hopelessness (Gidley, 2001), we might also say that empowerment may be linked with
enabling “agency” or the capacity for youth to be able to help themselves and others. In this
35
sense, the skills and knowledge enables healthy agency among participants — a primary
enabling of creative capacity to act upon and shape their future, although the teaching of
37
concrete skills may be n ecessary, but not sufficient, for empowerment. Learning contained at
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
14 A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
this level seems to reflect level one learning (Burgoyne and Hodgson, 1983)that is factually1
significant for an immediate task but of no consequence or effect on views of the world in
general.
3
On entry to a program, a requisite level of skills (but not necessarily the same skills)
that is equally distributed amongst the group is perhaps ideal in order for each participant to
5
feel the capacity for positive contribution. Inequity in this regard may see some participants
becoming disenfranchised or isolated, producing a situation of disempowerment. We feel
7
the broad range of ages in the QSIC produced evidence of this.
8.1.2. Attitudes and motivation
9
Following on from the discussion on skills and knowledge, a distinction might also be made
between “doing” and “being.” “Doing” can be thought of as skill-based, instrumental learn-
11
ing, while “being” is character-based, associated with attitudes and inner motivations. Atti-
tude has been described as a predisposition toward certain behaviors (Athayde, 2003). We
13
see empowerment as both engendering enhanced doing and being, with character-building
equally as important as skill-building. Other dualities have also been recognized in learn-
15
ing and especially when learning is experientially-based. For instance, Politis (2005) draws
attention to the distinctions between the duality of experiences and the knowledge acquired
17
through experience as espoused by Rueber and Fischer along with the duality of Kolb’s
(1984) acquisition and transformation dimensions of learning. Cope and Watts (2000) also
19
indicate cognizance of layers and duality in learning when they remark on Burgoyne and
Hodgson’s (1983) fundamental meta-level learning that suggests a gradual erosion of deep
21
concepts that create new frames of reference. However, in our conception of learning for
“being” we do not necessarily refer to the learning about an external something, but a more
23
inward directed learning about self-belief and relationship with the world. This seems to
be aligned with one process of a type-two learning experience articulated by Burgoyne and
25
Hodgson (1983), that of a change in orientation or attitude.
The challenging experiences presented by the program at the individual and group
27
levels necessitated dynamic responses from participants to build practical skills and, just as
importantly, build character such as self-confidence, foresight, and curiosity. Thus, while
29
empowerment is based on the ability to do, it also seems to incorporate an attitude and
disposition toward the world. Ability means little if an individual is filled with a sense of
31
hopelessness and futility. And equally, a lack of ability may be a relatively small obstacle
for the person filled with hopefulness, a “can-do” attitude, and who is ready and eager to
33
exercise their agency in the world. Skills and knowledge “abilities” in the latter circumstance
may then become enabling devices to enact empowerment.
35
The QSIC case also raised issues about attitudesupon entry into a program and suggested
that it may be a central ingredient to achieving empowerment through a program. Attitudes
37
are shaped by expectations and if there is a mismatch between the expectations of the
participant and the goals of the program, then an attitude of disdain or dissatisfaction will
39
hamper the progress of the participant toward empowerment. Essentially, participants would
be on a journey they did not wish to be on.
41
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 15
8.1.3. Cognition1
According to Ester (cited in Mitchell et al., 2002b), cognition refers to the way people
think, perceive and know the world. The QSIC presented a dual exploration of probable
3
futures and preferred futures, which together was designed to create a dynamic tension in
the explorer to act, a dynamic hypothesized by Hayward (2003). To be an entrepreneur,
5
one must move from the perception of being a receptor of opportunity (despite perhaps
being complete with good skills and positive attitudes), to the viewpoint of being a creative
7
mind and a protagonist for positive change. Entrepreneurial cognition is about creating new
products and services, assembling resources and not only starting but also growing new
9
businesses (Mitchell et al., 2002b). A key element in the process of empowerment is for
an innovator to perceive the world as a place where he or she can be a responsible actor
11
and create innovations that serve a greater purpose. Being cognitively empowered without
skills, knowledge and attitudes leaves the formulae for empowerment somewhat short.
13
However, building cognition through foresight processes in conjunction with innovation
and enterprise skills and attitudes suggest a pathway to Burgoyne and Hodgson’s (1983)
15
level three learning. They suggest this learning level is not situation specific but represents
consciousness about conceptions of the world, how they are formed and how they might be
17
changed.
Admission into a program may be based upon cognition-driven criteria. For example,
19
the QSIC invites applicants to detail an invention representing the way the applicant per-
ceives and thinks about problems to adapt and develop solutions. However, we believe the
21
QSIC case shows that cognition alone is insufficient as a selection criterion when empow-
erment is the goal — equally important are sufficiency of skills and knowledge relative
23
to the group as well as attitudes and motivations that are congruent with the aim of the
program.
25
8.2. Process and channels for agency
Literature, particularly that of Gidley (2001, 2004) and Hicks (2002), backs up our own
27
assumptions, as well as the initial course design, regarding the importance of avenues for
action and agency in the process of empowerment. Without such avenues for action, there is a
29
danger that the energyand vision of young participantswill lack direction and lead to a sense
of disempowerment or futility through unfulfilled expectations. Empowerment within this
31
context requires a re-distribution of power, resources and decision-making responsibilities
(Staples, 1999) and often, this will challenge or test the will of reigning authority. In addition,
33
there are different types of agency that may vary depending on the needs of the participants.
The process of creating value should be seen as diverse, filled with nuances and shades of
35
meaning. Value can be created across value spheres (Wilber, 2000), scientific-technological,
moral-ethical and aesthetic. Different enterprises will have different modes of organization
37
depending upon their appropriateness to the situation. To unnecessarily limit options for
agency would seem to be detrimental to the goal of empowerment, an unnecessary cutting
39
off of the potential for human creativity and development. The following points expand on
different contexts within which empowerment can be supported or stifled.
41
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
16 A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
8.2.1. Organizational boundaries1
The organizational boundariesrefer to the structure and authority within the organization of
the intervention itself. The program intervention can be considered as a practice field, a place
3
of rehearsal for the young participants and here, they must feel the sense of responsibility
and consequence of actions for which they have been responsible. It is incumbent upon the
5
organizers and deliverers of the program to progressively roll-out empowerment and assist
the participants to see consequences and alternative ways of being. The hypothesis is that
7
the less empowered the participants are within the program, the less effective will be the
transference of responsibility beyond the program.
9
An example of this can be cited fromthe QSIC experience whereby the participants were
requested to form teams under their own volition. The result was three teams, one of which
11
was populated entirely by females and the other two entirely by males. The natural instinct
of the QSIC organizers was to intervene and re-form the groups and create gender balance.
13
As program facilitators, we argued against this and suggested that it was the participants’
decision and in essence their conventionto which they had the right to create the teams they
15
wanted. We did, however, point out the folly of uniformity to the groups and gave them the
right to re-form as they saw fit. In the end they did not change and we allowed them to keep
17
the responsibility for that decision. We feel this was an important part of empowering the
group to which some positive results may well be partly attributed.
19
These sorts of tensions in adult decisions for youth empowerment programs are also
raised in research by Messias, Fore and Parra-Medina (2005), who have developed best
21
practice guidelines for adults involved in youth empowerment programs. Of course, some
rules and boundaries need to be installed in the interests and protection of the participants
23
and the organizers in order to mediate against a breakdown in meaningful organization.
However, keeping these boundaries clear and relevant to the task of youth empowerment is
25
thought to be good practice for an enterprise program.
8.2.2. Family and social boundaries
27
Another process aspect for youth empowerment is an integration of family and social bound-
aries. Evidence was clear that both family and school (a social construction with particular
29
boundaries) were responsible for halting the progress of empowerment. There may be limit-
ing factors, such as family traditions and what family thinks is possible, versus the more un-
31
bounded and opportunity space and notions of possibility created within the QSIC. Whereas
participants were encouraged to return home and continue with bold visions for what they
33
were to create, some experienced the constraints of school, family expectations, and to an
extent, legal disempowerment. The QSIC placed expectations upon participants with regard
35
to what was possible in the area of enterprise and social change, and generated motivation
toward this. Yet, many of these expectations can only be realized where individuals have
37
legal entitlements as adults, have transcended limiting factors in their social and familial
situations, and have shifted from the dependence mindset characteristic of adolescents to
39
the independence or interdependence mindsets characteristic of most adults. This type of
educational intervention, therefore, may be more appropriate as a “rite of passage,” which
41
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 17
marks the transition between stages in life. Such a rite of passage may serve a symbolic1
purpose as well as a practical one. At the symbolic level, it sends the message to participants
that they have power in shaping the world and to use this power for good. At the practical
3
level, it enables participants with skills and knowledge that they can quickly implement in
their lives.
5
In the earlier discussion on empowerment in enterprise programs, Atherton (2004)
implicated the broader responsibilities of enterprise programs in considering the structural
7
enabling and disabling conditions in broader society. An example of incongruence between
these dimensions relevant to the issues of social boundaries was encountered in the QSIC
9
program. In Australian law, a minor (those under the age of eighteen years) has diminished
capacity to enter into contracts. While case law has found that the minor is relatively pro-
11
tected, it is the party that enters into a contract with a minor that is exposed to the full risks of
any failure on the minor’s behalf to deliver or uphold the conditions of the contract. This on
13
its own does not prohibit a minor from starting a business, although it does limit the extent
to which the business can be taken seriously without the full support of an adult (someone
15
above eighteen years of age) to act in the legal capacity required to form a fully enforceable
contract. This nuance of law is a difficult concept to convey to a group of eager young
17
adolescents, but is important to understand for the protectionof both the rights of the young
participant and the general community. The gravity of the situation becomes clear when one
19
considers such issues as intellectual property protection for minors. This scenario portrays
the case of a mismatch between the aims of a program and the social legal boundaries, and
21
with increased awareness of these issues, the QSIC program has been amended and adapted
to more appropriately reflect the social boundaries within which it operates.
23
8.3. Agency outcomes
Empowerment should be viewed as a multi-level process (Seibert, Silver and Randolph,
25
2004) as well as an outcome of agency or the ability to act. It appears essential that cog-
nizance of the types of agency outcomes are considered within the intervention design in
27
order to avoid disempowering, disabling or destructive consequences beyond the program
boundaries. There seem to be three potential agency outcomes of an enterprise program that
29
need to be considered.
First is one of Social empowerment and in this case, the individual may not seek inde-
31
pendence but rather a re-construction of existing social norms and expectations. This was
reflected significantly in the foresight literature (Gidley, 2001; Gidley and Inayatullah, 2002;
33
Hicks, 2002). The individual in this circumstance will develop an enterprise that can pos-
itively influence the social structure in a consensual manner and may be considered less
35
rebellious but perhaps rather radical and assertive. The social circumstance considers it the
right or personal responsibility of the individual to voice their opinion and act in concert
37
with their beliefs.
Second, there is Organizational empowerment whereby the participant enacts empow-
39
erment within a specific organizational, group, team or structured context, and this was
represented largely in the innovation literature (Dooley and Sullivan, 2001; Sundbo, 1999).
41
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
18 A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
The individual is granted rights and authority to act in a prescribed manner and empower-1
ment is a construct of the particular social-organizational context.
The third outcome is a Self-enabled empowerment, which is a constructof the individual,
3
encountered most strongly in the entrepreneurship literature (Kantor, 2002; Johnson, 1998;
Martin and Wright, 2005). Characteristics of this empowerment may be seen as rebellious-
5
ness or an individual seeking to exert their own will and direction in a tear-away fashion
from an existing social structure. The goals and desires of the individual may lie outside
7
of those of the system within which they find themselves. This form of empowerment is
highly dominated by leadership ambitions whereby the individual will seek independence
9
of the boundaries of family or other socially constructed boundaries to take rights and
responsibilities upon themselves.
11
For an educational intervention such as the QSIC, each form of empowerment is a
possible aim; however, the actual lived outcomes may not be in concert with the intended
13
outcomes of the program. This raises an important issue for the development and design
of the program and the level of engagement of the program organizers with the social
15
systems that will be encountered by the participant upon their return. Therefore, designers
of an empowerment program have a responsibility for engaging with the issues of both the
17
participant and the social context from which the participant emerges in order to establish
shared beliefs and ensure that the intended outcomes are in harmony with the social and
19
organizational environments to which the participant will return.
Figure 3 provides a graphic representation of a proposed theoretical framework of the
21
factors and outcomes affecting individual empowerment and agency. It maps the influences
that we have encountered in the exploration of the QSIC case and we hope provides insight
23
into theoretical relationships that can be subjected to further testing and development.
9. Conclusions
25
In pursuing empowerment as a goal through an enterprise-oriented education, an important
distinction needs to be made between the overall approach and the discrete techniques in
27
the modules of delivery. Without this distinction, it is easy to focus on the modular aspect of
the program and an assumption that empowerment will take place in a rather disaggregated
29
manner. An understanding of the overall program, the approach, is necessary to situate
the various techniques. In the QSIC, the approach was to challenge participants in a deep
31
and appropriate way, informed by an understanding of action learning (team project and
experientially-based learning by doing) and outward bound (a bold adventure and rugged
33
journey). The individual techniques were nested in this broader approach, which assisted
empowerment.
35
Beneath this dynamic approach, empowerment was evidenced beyond the boundaries of
the program except where other contextual issues obstructed the process. External systemic
37
pressures had a disempowering and stifling effect on the success of the intervention within at
least the time frame of the QSIC evaluation. Rather than just download pre-packaged content
39
into the minds of participants, the expectation from the QSIC was that participants would
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 19
PROCESS
AGENCY
Individual Empowerment
Skills and
Knowledge
Attitudes and
Motivation Cognition
Organizational
Boundaries
Family & Social
Boundaries
Organizational
Empowerment
Self-enabled
Empowerment
Social
Empowerment
ENTRY
Fig. 3. An entrepreneurship empowerment intervention theoretical Framework.
work with the content as material and tools in their usual environment to build something1
close to their hearts. From this view, empowerment cannot so easily be instrumentalized.
Empowerment should not be understood as a construct with a single source of deriva-
3
tion, but as a dynamic process and quality that can be directed toward the development of
certain human capabilities and attitudes. It may also be understood in humanistic terms, as
5
the unfolding of the human potential. And it may also be considered as a feeling, an outlook,
a human characteristic; empowerment is more than skill. It can be a sense of accomplish-
7
ment that translates to confidence and also a deepened context that leads to initiative and
responsibility taking. Enabling was considered an important approach to empowerment —
9
to give ability in key areas. However, engendering an empowered attitude and fostering
self-confidence was also important.
11
10. Limitations and Further Research
Limitations in this research endeavor need to be noted, especially as the framework has
13
been developed through the experiences of one particular case intervention with a limited
number of participants. This has meant that the basis of the data extraction has been narrow
15
with a weak heuristic and the resulting framework would benefit from testing with a broader
range of participants before it could be generalized across cases. The method draws upon
17
the assumptions and values of the primary researchers and interventionists from which the
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
20 A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
qualitative evaluation was conducted (noted in Figure 2) and was aimed at construction of1
theory. This suggests the need for a wider investigation involving comparative analysis of
educational interventions.
3
The research method has kept the voice of the participant passive. The findings would
have benefited from testing and verification with the participants and perhaps this could be
5
achieved in the future by engaging the participants in participatory approaches to research
to develop and extend the conference design. This also suggests the need for longitudinal
7
research that maps the circumstances of individuals against the pressures on empowerment
with a closer examination of the role of social context (family/school) as both limiting and
9
enabling participant agency in innovation and enterprise activities. There also may be subtle
boundary limitations within specific contexts not yet identified and indeed, boundaries are
11
likely to overlap between social, family and other potentially unidentified structures.
A fuller understanding of the development of an intervention and the different types
13
of possible participants in empowerment interventions is still required. For instance, what
approach and design would be appropriatefor an FI and E empowerment intervention devel-
15
oped for convicted criminals in preparation for release from jail or for employees in a global
business or students through apost-graduate education program? Each of these interventions
17
would have very different participants with starting positions of a vastly different nature
and therefore, would it not lead to variations in design principles? Each of these type of par-
19
ticipants would also have different perspectives on structures within which empowerment
would need to operate. This suggests a focused study on the link between structures (which
21
emerge in futures explorations and innovation) and agency (which emerge in entrepreneur-
ship) — a problematic relationship that has been well-developed for example by Giddens
23
(1984). Where many education interventions for youth seek to focus on an employability
outcome, an entrepreneurship education intervention has a far greater need to be interfaced
25
into the greater social spectrum. Holding a principle aim of empowerment brings with it
broader responsibilities and potentials. As researchers and academics, we have an imper-
27
ative to ensure that rigorous theoretical frameworks underpin entrepreneurship education
and training for human empowerment in bringing diverse value into the world.
29
Appendix A. The Third Party Evaluator Questions that Revealed Responses
Indicating Levels of Empowerment (Questacon Smart Moves Report, 2004,
31
unpublished)
•Usefulness of the mentors
33
•Overall, what do you believe was the strongest/best part of the program?
•Overall, what was the most memorable part of the convention?
35
•So what have you been up to since the convention?
•What information that you learned at the convention, have you used?
37
•What steps (if any) have you taken to further your idea?
•Do you have any major achievements/milestones you would like to tell us about that has
39
happened for you and your idea since the convention?
•What are your future plans/steps for you and your idea?
41
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 21
•What has been the biggest challenge faced by you since the convention for you and your1
idea? Have you overcome it yet?
•Suggestions for improvements to the information that you received before the convention
3
Appendix B. First Person Reflection Summary
The four reflexive questions posed for the first person action research:
5
(1) What did empowerment mean in the context of foresight, innovation and enterprise?
In particular, what about the distinction between official/formal knowledge and lived
7
experience.
(2) What role did learning processes have in delivering empowerment?
9
(3) How did our values/positions and assumptions around multiple value propositions influ-
ence the process of empowering and the outcome of empowerment?
11
(4) What needs did we anticipate in terms of supporting empowerment beyond the confer-
ence for the participants?
13
Summary of Reflexive Questions Combined Response
Content: What did we want them to learn?
15
(1) Deliver technical know-how or an ability to apply practical skills sets
(2) Relay the importance of contextual and relational understanding
17
(3) Be aware of issues and challenges of society
(4) To build hopeful and empowering visions
19
(5) Learn about “team” perspective of innovation
(6) Linkage of the three domains of foresight, innovation and enterprise
21
(7) An awareness of the consequences of consequences
(8) Assessment of ideas for social and economic impact at community andpersonal levels
23
(9) Open-mindedness about different scenarios and perspectives
(10) Awareness and respect for their own experiences
25
(11) How to draw upon the experiences of others
Process: How did we think processes contributed to learning?
27
(1) The process was essential to the delegates gaining empowerment
(2) Certain settings can be disempowering
29
(3) The process needed to provide points of reference through stories of life
(4) The process needed to provide the participants some control
31
(5) Some self-directedness was important to enable individuals to find what was important
and meaningful
33
(6) Teamwork was important
(7) Through gaining confidence in the “formal knowledge” in that the process proved the
35
ability to apply the technical knowledge
(8) Through gaining self-confidence in beliefs
37
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
22 A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
(9) Through gaining resilience to challenges of beliefs1
(10) Through gaining flexibility to re-assess beliefs
Values: What affect did our preconceived values and positions on multiple value propositions
3
have on the process and the empowerment outcome?
We believed that:
5
(1) All “value spheres” should be considered — scientific-technological, moral and
aesthetic
7
(2) Values and motives should be explicit
(3) Self-interest dominates the business culture that drives change today and this has a
9
negative social impact
(4) Foresight opens up the various value dimensions in a changing world
11
(5) Multiple value propositions are a given and innovation and enterprising individuals need
to know how to work within that context
13
Support: What support beyond the conference did we feel necessary for empowered
individuals?
15
(1) Support at the local level by a mentor to keep the conversation and peer group alive
(2) Support was an aid or a tool to be utilized that included a means to remain in contact
17
with peers and mentors
(3) A reference source such as the workbook to assist with sourcing information and locating
19
assistance
(4) A prompt for reflective thinking provided by the workbook
21
References
Abramson, L, G Metalsky and L Alloy (1989). Hopelessness Depression: A theory-based subtype of23
depression. Psychological Review, 96(2), 358–372.
Alvesson, M and K Sköldberg (2000). Reflexive Methodology. London, UK: Sage Publications Inc.25
Athayde, R (2003). Measuring young people’s attitudes to enterprise. In Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Council for Small Business 48th World Conference. 15–18 June, Northern Ireland.27
Atherton, A (2004). Unbundling enterprise and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Innovation,
May, 121–127.29
Burgoyne, JG and VE Hodgson (1983). Natural learning and managerial action: A phenomenological
study in the field setting. Journal of Management Studies, 20(3), 387–399.31
Conger, JA and RN Kanungo (1988). The empowerment process: Intergrating theory and practice.
Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.33
Cope, J and G Watts (2000). Learning by doing: An exploration of experience, critical incidents and
reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &35
Research, 6(3), 104–124.
Cromie, S (2000). Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations: Some approaches and empirical evidence.37
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 7–30.
Dooley, L (2001). Structuring innovation: A conceptual model and implementation methodology.39
Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2(3), 177–194.
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 23
Eisenhardt, KM (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,1
14(4), 532–550.
Falkäng, J and F Alberti (2000). The assessment of entrepreneurship education. Industry & Higher3
Education, April, 101–108.
Giddens, A (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge:5
Polity.
Gidley, J (2001). An intervention targeting hopelessness in adolescents by promoting positive future7
images. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11(1).
Gidley, J (2004). Future/Foresight in education at primary and secondary levels: A literature review and9
research task analysis. In Futures in Education: Principles, P ractices and Potential. Melbourne:
Australian Foresight Institute, Swinburne University of Technology.11
Greene, PG, JA Katz and B Johannisson (eds.) (2004). Entrepreneurship education. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 238–241.13
Hansemark, OC (1998). The effects of an entrepreneur ship program on need for achievement and locus
of control of reinforcement. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour & Research,15
4(1), 28–50.
Harrison, RT and CM Leitch (2005). Entrepreneurial learning: Researching the interface between17
learning and the entrepreneurial context. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(4),
351–371.19
Hayward, P (2003). Foresight in Everyday Life. Melbourne: Australian Foresight Institute, Swinburne
University of Technology.21
Henderson, R and M Robertson (1999). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to
entrepreneurship as a career. Education +Training, 41(5), 236–245.23
Hicks, D (2002). Lessons for the Future, the Missing Dimension in Education, Teaching about Global
Issues, the Need for Holistic Learning. London / NY: Routledge Falmer.25
Honig, B (2001). Learning strategies and resources for entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs. Entrepreneur-
ship: Theory and Practice, 26(1), 21–36.27
Honold, L (1997). A review of the literature on employee empowerment. Empowerment in Organi-
zations, 5(4), 202–212.29
Johnson, MA (1998). An overview of basic issues facing microenterprise practicies in the United
States. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 5–21.31
Kanter, RM (1984). The Change Masters — Innovation for Productivity in the American Corporation.
New York: Simon and Schuster.33
Kantor, P (2002). Gender, microenterprise success and cultural context: The case of South Asia.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26(4), 131–143.35
Kolb, D (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.37
Krueger, Jr, NF, (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 24(3), 5–23.39
Krueger, Jr, NF and DV Brazeal (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91–104.41
Kuratko, DF, JS Hornsby and MG Goldsby (2004). Sustaining corporate entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, May, 77–89.43
Laveman, L (2000). The Harmonium Project: A macrosystemic approach to empowering adolescents.
Journal of Mental Health Counselling, 22(1), 17–31.45
Le Breton-Miller, I, D Miller and LP Steier (2004). Toward an integrative model of effective FOB
succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 305–328.47
Lincoln, ND, C Travers, P Ackers and A Wilkinson (2002). The meaning of empowerment: The inter-
disciplinary etymology of a new management concept. International Journal of Management49
Reviews, 4(3), 271–290.
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
24 A. O’Connor & J. M. Ramos
Lüthje, C and N Franke (2002). Fostering entrepreneurship through university education and training:1
Lessons from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Paper presented at the EURAM Stock-
holme 2nd Annual Conference, Stockholme, Sweden.3
Martin, LM and LT Wright (2005). No gender in cyberspace? Empowering entrepreneurship and inno-
vation in female-run ICT small firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &5
Research, 11(2), 162–178.
Messias, DKH, EM Fore and D Parra-Medina (2005). Adult roles in community-based youth empow-7
erment programs. Family Community Health, 28(4), 320–337.
Mintzberg, H (1979). An emerging strategy of “direct” research. Administrative Science Quarterly,9
24(4), 582–598.
Mitchell, RK, JB Smith, E Morse, K Seawright, A Peredo and B McKenzie (2002a). Are11
entrepreneurial cognitions universal? Assessing entrepreneurial cognitions across cultures.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 9–32.13
Mitchell, RK, L Busenitz, T Lant, PP McDougall, EA Morse and JB Smith (2002b). Toward a the-
ory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research.15
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 93–104.
Morgan, G (1997). Images of Organization. CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.17
Nakkula, M, M Lutyens, C Pineda, A Dray, F Gaytan and J Huguley (2004). Initiating, lead-
ing and feeling in control of one’s fate. National Federation of Teaching Entrepreneurship.19
http//www.nfte.com/impact/ [26 February 2005].
Neuman, WL (1994). Social Research Methods. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.21
Osborne, SW, TW Falcone and PB Nagendra (2000). From unemployed to entrepreneur: A case study
in intervention. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 115–136.23
Outward Bound Australia (2002). Outward Bound Australia. In the official newsletter Oz Bound,
Autumn, 8.25
Peterman, NE (2000). Influencing students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship, Young Achievement
Australia. http//www.yaa.org.au/arch_gen_news126a.htm [1 June 2003].27
Peterman, NE and J Kennedy (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students perceptions of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 28(2), 129–144.29
Politis, D (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, 29(4), 399–424.31
Ramos, JM and A O’Connor (2004). From social foresight to social en trepreneurship: Pathways to sus-
tainability. In Regional Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, LM Gillin, J Butler, E Douglas,33
K Hindle, F LaPira, N Lindsay, D Shepherd, J Yencken and S Zahra (eds.), pp. 318–334. The
Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology.35
Rasheed, H (2002). Developing entrepreneurial characteristics in youth: The effects of education
and enterprise experience. http://www.coba.usf.edu/departments/management /faculty/rasheed/37
research.htm [24 June 2003].
Reason, P and H Bradbury (2002). A Handbook of Action Research. London: Sage Publications.39
Roffe, I (1999). Innovation and creativity in organisations: A review of the implications for training
and management. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(4/5), 224–237.41
Seibert, SE, SR Silver and WA Randolph (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-
level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal,43
47(3), 332–349.
Senge, P and O Scharmer (2001). Community action research: Learning as a community of practition-45
ers, consultants and researchers. In A Handbook of Action Research, P Reason and H Bradbury
(eds.), pp. 238–249. London: Sage Publications.47
Sexton, DL and N Bowman (1983). Determining entrepreneurial potential of students. In Academy of
Management Proceedings. Academy of Management.49
Stake, R (2003). Case studies. In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, NK Denzin and Y Lincoln (eds.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.51
1st Reading
August 19, 2006 1:7 WSPC WS-JDE SPI-J076 00040
Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation 25
Staples, L (1999). Consumer empowerment in a mental health system: Stakeholder roles & responsi-1
bilities. In Empowerment in Social Work Practice, W Shera and LM Wells (eds.), pp. 119–141.
Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.3
Strauss, A and J Corbin (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory. California: Sage Publications.5
Sundbo, J (1999). Empowerment of employees in small and medium-sized service firms. Employee
Relations, 21(2), 105–127.7
Torbert, WR (2001). The practice of action inquiry. In A Handbook of Action Research, P Reason and
H Bradbury (eds.), pp. 238–249. London: Sage Publications.9
Wang, CK, PK Wong and Q Lu (1999). Entrepreneurial intentions and tertiary education. Paper
presented at the Conference on Technological Entrepreneurship in the Emerging Regions of11
the New Millennium, 28–30 June 2001, Singapore.
Wilber, K (2000). Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy. Boston, MA:13
Shambhala.
Yin, RK (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-15
tions, Inc.
