Content uploaded by Alex Maritz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alex Maritz on Oct 18, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Alex Maritz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alex Maritz on Oct 18, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Education + Training
The status of entrepreneurship education in Australian universities
Alex Maritz Colin Jones Claudia Shwetzer
Article information:
To cite this document:
Alex Maritz Colin Jones Claudia Shwetzer , (2015),"The status of entrepreneurship education in
Australian universities", Education + Training, Vol. 57 Iss 8/9 pp. 1020 - 1035
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2015-0026
Downloaded on: 31 May 2016, At: 19:08 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 50 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 751 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"DesUni: university entrepreneurship education through design thinking", Education + Training,
Vol. 57 Iss 8/9 pp. 977-991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-09-2014-0121
(2015),"Sustainability: what the entrepreneurship educators think", Education + Training, Vol. 57 Iss
8/9 pp. 834-852 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2015-0019
(2013),"The process of impact of entrepreneurship education and training on entrepreneurship
perception and intention: Study of educational system of Iran", Education + Training, Vol. 55 Iss 8/9
pp. 868-885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2013-0053
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:215423 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
The status of entrepreneurship
education in Australian
universities
Alex Maritz
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
Colin Jones
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, and
Claudia Shwetzer
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to provide an analytical overview of the current state
of entrepreneurship education (EE) in Australia; placing emphasis on programs, curricula and
entrepreneurship ecosystems.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors performed a contextual review of the literature by
delineating entrepreneurship education programs, the entrepreneurial ecosystem and EE learning
and teaching. The review was enhanced by a systematic collection of data from higher education
institutions web sites, depicting the prevailing situation of entrepreneurship programs, courses,
subjects and their ecosystems.
Findings –A number of interesting findings emerged from this study. From a curricular perspective,
Australian universities offer 584 subjects related to entrepreneurship. This includes dominance at
undergraduate level, representing 24 minors/majors and specializations in entrepreneurship. In total,
135 entrepreneurship ecosystems were identified.
Research limitations/implications –This paper presents findings from university web sites and
as such requires introspection to validate individual university offerings.
Practical implications –The study provides the status of EE in Australia, and may guide academic
and policy decision makers to further develop entrepreneurship initiatives.
Originality/value –This paper provides the first analytical overview of EE in Australia and paves
the way for further evaluation.
Keywords Australia, Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship education
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Infusing entrepreneurship into education has spurred much enthusiasm in recent times,
with associated outcomes such as economic growth, innovation commercialization
and job creation (Lackeus, 2015). National characteristics have a major impact on the
readiness of individuals to pursue business creation, often referred to as business
creation stability (Reynolds, 2015). Entrepreneurship education (EE) in Australia is
one of the most important components of ecosystems to enhance intentionality
(Van Gelderen et al., 2015) and business creation stability (Lackeus, 2015). EE courses
and programs represent significant growth in modern higher education institutions
(HEI) internationally (Blenker et al., 2014); yet this phenomenon has received scant
national research in an Australian context. National EE studies are abound,
Education +Training
Vol. 57 No. 8/9, 2015
pp. 1020-1035
© Emerald Group PublishingLimited
0040-0912
DOI 10.1108/ET-04-2015-0026
Received 19 April 2015
Revised 26 June 2015
26 August 2015
Accepted 30 August 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm
The authors wish to thank the editor, editorial team and reviewers for their insights in adding
significant value to this paper.
1020
ET
57,8/9
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
particularly in the USA (Morris et al., 2013; Solomon, 2007), UK (Matlay and Carey,
2007), Malaysia (Cheng et al., 2009), China (Li et al., 2003), Denmark (Vestergaard et al.,
2012) and a concentration of European countries (European Commission (EC), 2015).
Overall, national EE research has been dominant in the USA and Europe; primarily due
to national funding projects and initiatives, with support institutions like the National
Council for Enterprise Education (NCEE), Kauffman Foundation (USA), the German
EXIST –program and the Danish “Fonden for Entreprenorskab.”Many
entrepreneurship research collaborations have also influenced EE indirectly, with
examples including the European Foundation for Entrepreneurship Research (EFER),
the Babson Consortium for Entrepreneurship Research (BCER) and Australian Centre
for Entrepreneurship Research (ACER). To date, there is little or no evidence of any
similar EE studies of national prominence in Australia.
The Australian higher education system consists of independent, self-governing
public and private universities and HEI that award higher education qualifications;
composed of 38 public universities and three private universities. Unique to the
Australian system is the dominance of eight larger universities, referred to as
“The Group of Eight”(G8). In order to assess and provide guidelines for learning
outcomes, the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) was introduced in 1995.
The AQF is a national policy regulating qualifications in Australian education and
training. It encompasses higher education, vocational education and training and
schools (Australian Qualifications Framework, 2013). Most EE programs in Australia
are embedded within business schools and business faculties, despite the prevalence of
multi-disciplinary approaches. Deans from 41 Australian university business schools
or faculties created the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC), with a mission to
advance and promote the value of excellence in business education and research
through engagement across Australian universities, industry, the government and the
community. It is regulated by the Tertiary Quality and Standard Agency (TEQSA) and
verifies that the degree-level learning outcomes are benchmarked against external
standards. Examples of such learning standards include disciplines of accounting,
marketing and economics (Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC), 2014). Learning
standards for the entrepreneurship discipline have to date not met with priority from
the ABDC, however, the body has recently endorsed a potential project by the authors
in this regard.
Institutional or program-specific EE research in Australia has been dominant in
areas of pedagogy (Balan and Metcalfe, 2012), roles and responsibilities ( Jones et al.,
2012), policy and governance (O’Connor, 2013), evaluation (Douglas, 2013) and program
structures and components (Maritz et al., 2013; Maritz and Brown, 2013). This study
shifts the focussed paradigm to a national level, demystifying entrepreneurship courses
and programs across the 41 HEI within Australia. We explore EE across disciplinary
platforms, such as offerings in engineering, design, innovation and biodevices (Maritz
et al., 2013); EE programs (Maritz and Brown, 2013); postgraduate and undergraduate
(Fayolle, 2010); outreach and ecosystems (Isenberg, 2011; Fetters et al., 2010; Morris
et al., 2013); stakeholders (Matlay, 2009); impact (Matlay, 2008); entrepreneurial learning
(Pittaway and Cope, 2007); intentionality (Van Gelderen et al., 2015), opportunities
(Davidson, 2015) and broader aspects of EE ( Jones et al., 2014a, b).
The starting point of this paper is a review of entrepreneurship education programs
(EEPs), the entrepreneurial university and ecosystems, EE learning and teaching and
EE contextual factors; followed by research design and methods, presentation of the
results, culminating in a discussion and conclusions. The aim of the study is to provide
1021
EE in
Australian
universities
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
a framework of the status of EE in Australia, by providing a rank order of EE activities
in HEIs. The purpose is to guide academic and policy decision makers on the
importance of EE to the economy and HEIs, and opportunities of development in
enhancing EE activities through governing bodies (such as AQF and ABDC). During
the literature review, we propose a re-conceptualization on shortcomings of current
theory, particularly regarding EEPs and entrepreneurship learning and teaching.
The study is the first of its kind in examining EE in Australia.
EEPs
As a guiding context we apply the EEP framework developed by Maritz and Brown
(2013). They define EEPs as any pedagogical program or process of education for
entrepreneurial attitudes and skills, which involves developing personal qualities.
This EEP framework was selected, as it is the most recent published comprehensive
framework, systematically developed from various models and frameworks. The
framework provides appropriate contextualization for this research, and represents
EEPs across all dimensions, with the exception of ecosystem integration. Designed to
empower both entrepreneurs and nascent entrepreneurs with the tools necessary to
undertake a new business, EEPs are burgeoning internationally; their primary goal
being to increase the quantity and quality of entrepreneurs (Matlay, 2009), influence
behavior (Davidsson, 2015; Fayolle, 2010), entrepreneurial tendency (Van Gelderen
et al., 2015; Neck and Greene, 2011) and entrepreneurial outcomes (Matlay, 2008).
The framework adopted includes interrelated components of context, outcomes,
objectives, assessment, content, audience and pedagogy. To guide the current study,
we provide brief explanations of each of the components.
Penaluna et al. (2012) advocate the inclusion of contextualization as an integral
component of all EEPs. Prior to specifying objectives of EEPs, the context in which the
program is delivered is required. Most programs are typically delivered by HEIs
(Neck and Greene, 2011), which directly associates with the contextual boundaries of
this study. Contextualization may well resonate with the other components of EEPs,
examples include: non-business disciplines (Maritz et al., 2013), international contexts
(Fayolle, 2010), diversity such as gender (Pedridou et al., 2009), competitive offerings
(Morris et al., 2013), enterprise culture (Rae, 2010), outcomes (Matlay, 2008), audience
(Fayolle and Gailly, 2008), educator diversity ( Jones, 2010), skills, knowledge and
attitudes (Matlay, 2008), type of entrepreneurship (Nekka and Fayolle, 2010), teaching
methods and pedagogy (Fayolle, 2010), content and research (Maritz and Donovan,
2015) and evaluation (Harte and Stewart, 2012).
Outcomes of EEPs refer to actions and activities of participants after intervention
of EEPs (Matlay, 2008), most often regarded as entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
intentionality (Van Gelderen et al., 2015; Moburg et al., 2014). Outcomes are further
influenced not only by participants in EEPs, but stakeholders and external parties
involved in such programs (Matlay, 2009). Objectives and outcomes of EEPs are most
often integrated in EEPs (Balan and Metcalfe, 2012), with objectives referring to the
EEP goals, which are broadly described as pedagogical, social and/or economic
outcomes (Fayolle, 2010). Pedagogical goals help potential entrepreneurs learn about
entrepreneurship, while social goals can include developing the entrepreneurial culture
of a region and helping to “improve the image and highlight the role of entrepreneurs in
society”(Fayolle and Gailly, 2008, p. 576). Economic goals include the creation of new
ventures and jobs, and are achieved by setting objectives on a micro, or individual, level
and a macro, or societal, level (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008). The importance of EE lies in its
1022
ET
57,8/9
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
contribution to the attainment of socio-economic goals by addressing a range of
contemporary socio-economic and political challenges (Matlay, 2008).
The heterogeneity of an audience (program participants) for an EEP is crucial, as
participants have different learning needs and might fit into multiple categories at
different times. Audience has a direct correlation to objectives (Fayolle and Gailly,
2008), taking cognizance that students are only one domain of stakeholder involvement
in EEPs ( Jones, 2010). Although Maritz and Brown (2013) identified stakeholder
heterogeneity under audience, they did not elaborate on the importance and breadth
of stakeholders. More specifically, and post publication of their framework, the importance
of stakeholder involvement in EE programs has received prominent attention (Blenker
et al., 2014; EC, 2015; Maritz and Donovan, 2015). Matlay (2009) identifies stakeholder
expectations as complex and varied, reflecting a heterogeneous range of individual, group
and community needs. He further identifies internal and external stakeholders. The
former consists of students, teaching and research staff, administrators and mangers
(often university leadership), and the latter includes parents, alumni and entrepreneurs,
various representatives of business, commerce, professional bodies, government and
community. Another aspect not identified by Maritz and Brown (2013) is the integration
of the entrepreneurial university and entrepreneurship ecosystem. This links closely to
audience and stakeholders, and is discussed in the next section.
Content of EEPs provides extensive variation and most often identifies the multi-
disciplinary approach of EE (Maritz and Donovan, 2015). Content is usually a combination
of theory and practice (Rae, 2010), and often a contentious issue between entrepreneurship
educators (Maritz et al., 2013). This arises due to ideologies and beliefs on outcomes, latest
approaches in content, and deliverables within HEI. Course content also influences the
way material can be taught, or pedagogical methods. For example, somewhat outdated
generic business plan content is taught significantly different to newer content including
The Lean Startup (Reis, 2011) and Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur
2010). Fayolle (2010) believes that the chosen pedagogical methods and contents of EEPs
will be the decisive factors of success for EE in the twenty-first century. The introduction
of online platforms, blended learning, flipped classrooms and Massive Open Online
Courses, for example, provides a paradigm shift on pedagogical initiatives in EEPs.
Finally, assessment is two-fold; assessment of EEPs and assessment of participant
knowledge, skills and behaviors. Despite being outside the ambit of this study, assessment
is driven by program objectives, content and pedagogies. Due to the importance placed
on content, pedagogy and audience in EEPs, the next sections places emphasis on
ecosystems, pedagogical initiatives and student-centered learning in EE.
The entrepreneurial university and entrepreneurship ecosystems
An entrepreneurship ecosystem is a system, network or group of interconnected
elements, formed by the interaction of an entrepreneurial community of stakeholders/
organisms with their environment. University-based entrepreneurship ecosystems have
met with interest from entrepreneurship researchers and entrepreneurship educators
worldwide, with many academic institutions looking for guidance on how to frame,
design, launch and sustain their efforts in the area of entrepreneurship (Fetters et al., 2010).
An entrepreneurial university is a HEI that acts in an entrepreneurial manner, based upon
entrepreneurship research, the system of innovation and entrepreneurship, productivity of
technology transfer offices and university spin-offs (Walshok and Shapiro, 2014). While
the components of an entrepreneurial university are diverse, all successful entrepreneurial
universities have an EE curriculum (Frederick, 2011). Fetters et al. (2010) identified
1023
EE in
Australian
universities
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
elements of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems consisting of senior leadership
sponsorship, EE courses, entrepreneurship practicum, ongoing curriculum innovation,
entrepreneurship research program or center, networking events, entrepreneurship
students club(s), student venture investment fund, links to angel and venture funds,
incubator(s), entrepreneurship endowed chair(s) and center or program endowment.
For an entrepreneurial university to thrive, it is necessary that it interacts within the
larger economic community entrepreneurship ecosystem. Such entrepreneurship
ecosystems either replace or complement, or even pre-condition to, cluster strategies,
innovation systems, knowledge-based economies and national competitiveness policies
(Isenberg, 2011). Domains of such entrepreneurship ecosystems include policy, finance,
culture, supports, human capital and markets. HEIs fall under the human capital domain,
consisting of their own entrepreneurial ecosystems. It is thus vital that entrepreneurial
universities integrate within their greater regional and national entrepreneurship
ecosystems. EE is one of the most prominent methods to successfully integrate, despite
recognition that other elements of the entrepreneurial university are required to enhance
innovative and entrepreneurial activity (Frederick, 2011).
Morris et al. (2013) further delineate entrepreneurship programs and the modern
university, and while placing emphasis on EEPs, provide important inference to
co-curricular entrepreneurship support programs such as accelerators, incubators,
student-run ventures, business plan and elevator pitch competitions, mentoring programs,
entrepreneurship clubs and learning communities. They include outreach programs such
as technology commercialization, community engagement and university seed funding.
A more recent development is the technological enhancement of EE in a cross-disciplinary
environment (Maritz et al., 2013), such as EE in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics. Despite the vast array of EEPs and ecosystems, the objective is to increase
entrepreneurship through business creation stability (Reynolds, 2015).
In this study, we consider EE as an important and integral component of the
entrepreneurial university and university ecosystem. We, however, recognize the
importance of a wider ecosystem to fulfill the objectives of EE.
Teaching and learning entrepreneurship
In recent times, much interest has emerged related to what are appropriate methods for
teaching entrepreneurship. Jones (2011) provided an overview of the philosophies and
pedagogical approaches from EE educators in 35 countries. The experiential nature of
EE lends itself to a multitude of pedagogical methods. Gibb (2010) identified 44 specific
pedagogical approaches related to the eight following areas: entrepreneurial behavior,
attitude and skill development; creating empathy with the entrepreneurial world; key
entrepreneurial values; motivation to entrepreneurship career; understanding of
processes of business entry and tasks; generic entrepreneurship competencies; key
minimum business “how-tos”; and managing relationships. The breadth of such areas
highlights the increasingly broad application of EE in higher education.
Drawing upon advances in educational approaches (Hase and Kenyon, 2000, 2013),
EE is now being aligned to highly transformational education processes, best described
as heutagogical ( Jones et al., 2014a, b). Heutagogy refers to self-determined learning,
whereby students are initially guided by their passions and genuine interests.
Educators respond by providing mentoring and facilitation, rather than in a prescribed
pedagogical manner. In this way, EE has different entry points. The educator can
pedagogically plan to introduce topics such as business planning and entry strategies
to students. Alternatively, the students can introduce their personal contexts into the
1024
ET
57,8/9
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
learning environment, and be supported by the educator. The interaction between
pedagogy and heutagogy is medicated by a process of academagogy (McAuliffe and
Winter, 2013), or scholarly leading. In essence, academagogy is a process of negotiation
between educator and student whereby the nature of content and resource
identification and acquisition are negotiated, along with other process, for example
assessment processes.
Supporting the value creation process of such advances in educational approaches,
Lackeus (2015) suggest the following tools: effectuation, business model canvas, lean
startup, appreciative inquiry, service-learning and design thinking. While certainly not
exhaustive of tools, many of these approaches integrate well with recent advances
in educational approaches. These approaches enhance business creation stability
(Reynolds, 2015) by adapting to change and delivering on new entrepreneurship
teaching technologies and initiatives.
Until recently, EE has been forced to frame scholarly conversations about teaching
practices from a pedagogical perspective. The discovery of heutagogy and the
associated process of academagogy provide EE with additional scholarly freedom.
When the full breadth of Gibb’s (2010) EE pedagogical approaches are examined, it is
clear that many are indeed not enacted or lead by the educator, but rather initiated by
the student, or within the context of the students’interests. To conclude, approaches
to EE learning and teaching are complex and beyond capture through reference to
pedagogy. EE embraces the diversity of the student and celebrates its possibilities.
From a pedagogy and content perspective, recent dialogue ( June 2015) from the
Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Network (entrep@aomlists.pace.edu)
identified vocal and opinionated dialogue between leading and internationally renowned
entrepreneurship educators. Issues raised centered around teaching methods, pedagogy
and entrepreneurship content. Norris Krueger, for example, passionately advocated that
traditional lecturing is not appropriate for student entrepreneurs, opting for a more
experiential and flipped classroom approach. He also commented on content and tools,
identifying business plans as obsolete, rather pointing toward business models and the
lean-startup approach. These notions were met with much debate, with overwhelming
support of Krueger’s approaches to EE. Other scholars included in this dialogue included
(but not limited to) Gupta, Ladd, Winkel, Rushworth, Jones, Stout, Colwell and Lohrke.
Such open debate provides evidence of the diversity of approaches to EE, despite
unification of outcomes of proactivity, innovativeness, risk taking and opportunity
obsession (Davidsson, 2015); ultimately toward business creation stability (Reynolds,
2015). Despite particular content and pedagogy, EE has been found to have an impact on
student propensity and intentionality (Pittaway and Cope, 2007).
From an entrepreneurship learning and teaching perspective, we explore Australian
HEI entrepreneurship programs, with emphasis on adapting to innovative and
news ways of content and delivery. This somewhat resembles the shift of paradigms,
similar to the opportunity and entrepreneurship nexus as re-conceptualized by
Davidsson (2015).
Design and methods
A post-positivism philosophy with a deductive approach was maintained to operationalize
EEP concepts in order to be quantified. Data were collected based on content analysis
using secondary data on cross-sectional bases. Content analysis was applied as it provided
a detailed, systematic examination and interpretation of a particular body of material in an
effort to identify themes, biases and meanings. Each HEI was examined using content
1025
EE in
Australian
universities
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
analysis, guided by a rating form based on similar national equivalence issues such as
sample equivalence, instrument equivalence and data analysis equivalence (Coviello
and Jones, 2004). The objective of content analysis was to extract de-contextualized
information into meaningful components (such as EEPs and entrepreneurship ecosystem).
The elements that may be incorporated in content analysis are words or terms, themes,
characters, paragraphs, items, concepts and semantics (Berg, 2009). In this study, the
topics of EE (under the established definitions and selected conceptual framework) are
the theme, Australian HEI web sites are the unit of analysis, and the unit of observation
include elements such as the curriculum offer and additional activities mentioned in
relation to entrepreneurship ecosystems.
Categories and codes were derived from the predetermined Maritz and Brown (2013)
EEP framework. From a contextual component, we included HEIs, education levels
(undergraduate levels 5-7; postgraduate levels 8 and 9), Business Schools and Faculties
housing the entrepreneurship programs and subjects. From a content perspective,
we identified theory and practiced-based approaches (Rae, 2010), combined with
curriculum emphasis (such as business plan, growth, entrepreneurship fundamentals,
entrepreneurial marketing and innovation approaches). From an audience/student
perspective, we identified types of degrees/qualifications (bachelor, masters), under and
post-graduate and entrepreneurship majors (business students, engineering, design
and other disciplines). A separate section identified entrepreneurship ecosystems that
support EE curriculum. Data were collected from the identified Australian university
web sites, to depict the prevailing situation of programs, courses, subjects and
ecosystems of EE.
The data collection was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 included the search
conducted at business faculties/schools, faculties of engineering and other HEI
departments. We identified subjects or programs about entrepreneurship, subjects or
programs related to entrepreneurship and subjects or programs not related to
entrepreneurship (in which the word “entrepreneurship”is in the name of subject but
content is not related). Phase 2 included a direct type into web site search engines to
identify possible omitted items not covered in Phase 1. To conduct the data collection
process, the categories and codes were established under context (HEI), level, curricular
emphasis (such as business plan, growth, opportunity evaluation) and entrepreneurship-
related activities and ecosystems (such as incubators, entrepreneur in residence and
entrepreneurship research centers).
The established categories and entrepreneurship framework guided the data collection
process in which programs, courses and subjects regarding entrepreneurship were
identified and analyzed to evaluate their “fit”to the category of entrepreneurship. The
next step was the development of tables in order to organize the data and synthesize
results; with this it was possible to offer better visualization, facilitating the processing of
the data. A ranking mechanism was developed in order to assess the level of engagement
of universities with entrepreneurship. The ranking was according to a points grading
system, with the value of two points per item for more prominent items. Less prominent
items ranked one point. For example, a HEI offering eight subjects about entrepreneurship
would score 16 points (8×2) and a HEI offering eight subjects related to entrepreneurship
would score eight points (8×1). In this example, subjects about entrepreneurship rank
double to that of those related to entrepreneurship (less prominent). Full programs:
bachelor, masters, minor, major or specializations and subjects had to incorporate all
dimensions of EEPs as depicted in the Maritz and Brown (2013) framework, otherwise no
points were recoded for the particular item. Ratings were confirmed viable by a panel of
1026
ET
57,8/9
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
statistics professors. Universities were ranked first only regarding the subjects they offer
about and related to entrepreneurship. Second, an inclusive compound ranking was
developed with the following six elements and their assigned values/factors:
(1) full programs –postgraduate (value ¼2);
(2) bachelor with entrepreneurship specialization (value ¼2);
(3) masters combined with an entrepreneurship program (value ¼2);
(4) minor, major or specialization on entrepreneurship (value ¼1);
(5) subjects about entrepreneurship (value ¼2); related to entrepreneurship
(value ¼1); and
(6) entrepreneurial ecosystems (value ¼2).
Compound rankings were created for each university, considering all the findings
across its curricular offering and entrepreneurial ecosystems multiplied by the values/
factors. Bachelor programs where considered when having a composition of eight
business-related subjects plus eight subjects about and related to entrepreneurship
plus eight electives. Regarding the element of masters program combined with an
entrepreneurship program, it was under consideration of a 50 percent blend between
both programs.
Because of the nature of the methodology employed, the study is limited to follow a
descriptive analysis of results rather than statistical inference. The findings allow
the establishment of categories, patterns, relationships, commonalities and disparities,
frequency of concepts and a perception of the magnitude of the observations,
facilitating the possible links to theory or other research. Overall, the limitation of data
collection is reflective of what each HEI posted on their web site/s.
Results and discussion
We segregate findings into three categories, curricular offer and programs, curricular
emphasis and entrepreneurship ecosystems.
Curricula
After conducting the data collection process and analysis across the 41 Australian
universities it was found that the majority of the universities offer few to numerous
courses about and related to entrepreneurship. Table I shows the results for each
category including the curricular offer, programs and the entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Currently, Australian universities offer 307 subjects about entrepreneurship and
277 subjects related to entrepreneurship.
Subjects about entrepreneurship constitute those that directly engage entrepreneurship
and concepts described within the elements of the pre-established EEP framework.
Full programs
(postgrad)
Bachelor
w/entrep
spec
Masters
combined
w/entrep
Minors, majors, or
spec on entrep
Subjects
Entrepreneurial
ecosystems
About
entrep
Related to
entrep
13 12 1 24 307 277 135
Table I.
Curricular offer
and entrepreneurial
ecosystems at
Australian
universities
1027
EE in
Australian
universities
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
Of particular significance were the components of audience (inclusive of stakeholders),
content and program structures. Examples of subjects about entrepreneurship found
across the universities offer include: entrepreneurship theory and practice, introduction to
entrepreneurship, start-up fundamentals, new venture creation, strategic entrepreneurship,
and entrepreneurial venture finance.
Subjects related to entrepreneurship are those offered cross-disciplinary with
entrepreneurship such as business, strategy, management, marketing, finance, etc.,
qbut that have a connection and are related to entrepreneurship and are offered
to complement the programs with basic required knowledge on these topics. Examples
of subjects related to entrepreneurship found across the universities include: Design
Thinking, Creative Thinking, New Product Development, Innovation Management,
Engineering Innovation, Investment Strategies, and Negotiation Skills and Strategies.
Table II identifies the compound ranking inclusive of the above curriculum
offering in EE. Two universities dominate the rankings by curriculum offering.
Of particular interest is that only these two universities, The University of Adelaide
and Swinburne University of Technology offer full masters by coursework programs in
EE. While outside the bounds of this study, only these two HEIs resemble ideals of the
entrepreneurial university (Fetters et al., 2010).
There were, however, 13 postgraduate programs identified, offering at least
50 percent of their content in EE. These include (number of related programs in brackets)
Macquarie University (1), Swinburne University of Technology (2), Australian National
University (1), University of Adelaide (4), University of Sydney (1), University of Western
Australia (1), University of Newcastle (1), University of New South Wales (1), University
of Wollongong (1).
There were 12 bachelor programs involving entrepreneurship and innovation. They
are mostly offered as Bachelor of Business (entrepreneurship) or Bachelor of Commerce
(entrepreneurship). There are several more specific programs such as provided by The
University of Adelaide, which offers the Bachelor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
or the Bachelor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation offered by the University of
Canberra and Swinburne University of Technology. Regarding entrepreneurship
minors, majors and specializations, there are 24 offered by universities.
Curricular emphasis
In line with the multi-disciplinary approach to EE, much of the curricula emphasis
was on generic approaches to entrepreneurship content. This included dominance of
a general overview to entrepreneurship, followedbycontentrelatedtocreativity
and innovation. Business growth and the business plan next dominated curricular
emphasis. Table III depicts a curricular emphasis approach. An outlier is the
inclusion of lean-startup curricular approaches, providing evidence of a lack of
overall application of the latest content in EE within Australian HEI. As depicted
in the literature review regarding the proliferation of lean startup content
(entrep@aomlists.pace.edu), Australian HEIs are generally lagging in the adoption
of the latest pedagogies and EE content.
Entrepreneurship ecosystems
There are approximately 135 entrepreneurship ecosystems across the Australian
HEIs, predominantly focussed on activities dedicated to entrepreneurship, business
development and growth, innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship networks.
1028
ET
57,8/9
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
While outside the scope of this research, entrepreneurship research centers play a
significant role in entrepreneurship ecosystems. These have been included in this data.
A pertinent example is the ACER at the Queensland University of Technology. Despite
ranking relatively low on EE, this institution is considered an international leader in
entrepreneurship research.
Examples of universities that have comprehensive entrepreneurial ecosystems
include Swinburne University of Technology, the University of Adelaide, the University
of Sydney, the University of Queensland, the University of Melbourne and the
University of New South Wales. They include forums, business incubators, networking
No. University Ranking (compound)
1 Swinburne University of Technology 104
2 The University of Adelaide 98
3 The University of Sydney 81
4 The University of Queensland 58
5 The University of Melbourne 57
6 University of New South Wales 57
7 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) 49
8 University of South Australia 47
9 University of Technology, Sydney 46
10 The University of Western Australia 42
11 University of Tasmania 40
12 University of the Sunshine Coast 34
13 Macquarie University 33
14 University of Newcastle 33
15 University of Western Sydney 33
16 Federation University Australia (previously University of Ballarat) 31
17 Bond University 31
18 The Flinders University of South Australia 29
19 University of Canberra 29
20 University of Wollongong 26
21 La Trobe University 25
22 Queensland University of Technology 25
23 The Australian National University 24
24 Edith Cowan University 18
25 Southern Cross University 17
26 Victoria University 17
27 Curtin University of Technology 15
28 Griffith University 15
29 James Cook University 15
30 University of Southern Queensland 15
31 Monash University 14
32 Charles Sturt University 13
33 Murdoch University 13
34 Deakin University 12
35 Australian Catholic University 11
36 Charles Darwin University 10
37 Central Queensland University 7
38 University of New England 6
39 The University of Notre Dame Australia 6
40 Bachelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education 1
41 MCD University of Divinity 0
Table II.
University
compound rankings
1029
EE in
Australian
universities
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
No. University
Business
plan
Business
growth
Opp.
eval.
Lean
start-up
Creativity
and innov.
General
overview
1 Central Queensland University 1 0 1 0 2 0
2 Charles Darwin University 1 0 1 0 3 0
3 Charles Sturt University 4 0 3 0 3 0
4 Curtin University of Technology 2 2 0 0 3 2
5 Deakin University 2 0 3 0 3 2
6 Edith Cowan University 1 1 5 0 7 1
7 Griffith University 2 0 2 0 3 2
8 James Cook University 0 0 1 1 7 4
9 La Trobe University 4 4 4 0 5 8
10 Macquarie University 2 1 4 0 2 2
11 Monash University 3 1 4 1 2 5
12 Murdoch University 4 0 3 0 3 5
13 Queensland University of
Technology 2 3 4 1 3 3
14 Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology (RMIT) 2 4 7 0 5 12
15 Southern Cross University 3 3 5 0 2 8
16 Swinburne University of
Technology 5 8 17 1 21 31
17 The Australian National
University 6 0 2 0 4 5
18 The Flinders University of South
Australia 2 0 0 0 3 4
19 The University of Adelaide 6 12 14 0 25 28
20 The University of Melbourne 2 1 2 0 8 15
21 The University of Queensland 6 5 5 0 19 20
22 The University of Sydney 5 7 5 0 30 21
23 The University of Western
Australia 1 2 5 0 17 14
24 Federation University Australia
(Previously University of Ballarat) 4 0 3 0 10 6
25 University of Canberra 4130 10 6
26 University of Newcastle 1450 11 7
27 University of New England 2010 0 2
28 University of New South Wales 6 3 6 0 20 19
29 University of South Australia 7 4 8 0 12 14
30 University of Southern Queensland 2 2 1 0 4 2
31 University of Tasmania 2 1 4 0 14 8
32 University of Technology, Sydney 2 0 4 0 19 10
33 University of the Sunshine Coast 1 5 5 0 7 10
34 University of Western Sydney 2 0 0 0 6 8
35 University of Wollongong 2 0 3 0 9 5
36 Victoria University 1 1 5 0 4 8
37 Australian Catholic University 0 2 1 0 5 4
38 Bachelor Institute of Indigenous
Tertiary Education 0 0 0 0 1 0
39 Bond University 3 5 3 0 2 9
40 The University of Notre Dame
Australia 0 0 0 0 3 3
41 MCD University of Divinity 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 105 82 149 4 317 313
Table III.
Entrepreneurship-
related curricular
emphasis
1030
ET
57,8/9
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
sessions and mentoring programs, “real entrepreneurs”guest speakers, business plan
and pitch competitions.
Table II depicts overall University Compound Rankings, inclusive of curriculum and
ecosystems. Based upon available data on Australian university web sites, two
universities are prominent in EE; Swinburne University of Technology and The
University of Adelaide. Victoria may be regarded as the most significant State in EE,
with Swinburne University of Technology, The University of Melbourne and RMIT in
the top ten rankings. This is consistent with a study of Victorian entrepreneurial
universities (Frederick, 2011). What is concerning, however, is that only a handful of
Australian HEIs may be regarded as entrepreneurial universities with developed
entrepreneurship ecosystems (Fetters et al., 2010). Furthermore, there is a distinct and
consistent lack of engagement between HEIs and their regional and national
ecosystems (Isenberg, 2011).
Conclusion
This paper has provided the first overall evaluation of EE in Australia. There is much
breadth to the offerings in the region, as there is globally. Clearly some states in Australia
have invested into entrepreneurship for longer and in more focussed ways than others.
Anecdotal evidence of job vacancies and developments in the entrepreneurship discipline
across Australia has met with much enthusiasm regarding growth of the discipline.
This study has highlighted the extant offering of entrepreneurship-related content across
curricula, programs and ecosystems. Of significance is the spread of programs across
faculties, and the emergence of cross-faculty EE. With only two HEIs offering full
postgraduate programs in EE, there is, however, an opportunity across the country to
enhance this offering.
The analysis highlighted a somewhat fragmented approach to EE, with many HEIs
in the infancy stage relative to the Maritz and Brown (2013) EEP framework. Of
particular significance is the lack of cohesion and national entrepreneurship academic
standards and graduate student outcomes. This is evidenced by poorly developed EEP
components, particularly in areas of audience, content and pedagogy.
Another aspect highlighted in the paper was the importance of the entrepreneurship
ecosystem/s in supporting EE. It is clear that EE is part of entrepreneurship
ecosystems, and that these two activities are mutually inclusive. While there are vast
ecosystems supporting EE in Australia, there is room for significant improvement.
There is also an identified lack of development of the entrepreneurial university in
Australia, possibly another best practice initiative to be adopted from successful
implementations in countries such as Germany, UK, USA and Denmark.
What is still to be understood is the impact that these efforts are having on
supporting entrepreneurial behavior and/or contributing to their local economies.
This is a complex area of research that is being considered globally, and indeed an
identified area of further research in Australia. It is recommended that such measures
of impact in the Australian context commence with the development of national
entrepreneurship learning standards. Once such standards have been developed and
disseminated, impact and measurement require national priority. This will also provide
national business creation stability.
Overall, this paper has contributed to the body of knowledge regarding the global
growth of EEPs, with particular reference to an Australian context. It has also provided
insights and implications for university administrators and leaders, deans and HEI
education specialists, particularly regarding the high-growth of the entrepreneurial
1031
EE in
Australian
universities
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
university on a global platform. The study also contributes to national priorities
of innovation commercialization, providing insights to leading institutions with
developed entrepreneurship ecosystems, technology transfer capabilities and overall
ability to exploit opportunities in wider ecosystems. It is recommended that Australian
HEIs collaborate more effectively with international HEIs (meaningful entrepreneurial
universities), particularly those international partners with significant EEPs
and entrepreneurship ecosystems. This may result in adapting initiatives from
international counterparts within an Australian context.
Application to practice is particularly highlighted by contextualizing the components
of EEPs and entrepreneurship ecosystems nationally. Best practice initiators, particularly
those with integrated and developed EEPs and ecosystems, may guide educators,
stakeholders and governments. To this extent, smaller players and those in less
developed entrepreneurship ecosystems may leverage resources to provide enhanced
entrepreneurship activities in their local environments. Implications of sharing best
practice in EEPs and HEI entrepreneurship ecosystems may well enhance the national
entrepreneurship ecosystem, enabling a more innovative approach to transforming
entrepreneurship to mainstream academic discipline leadership and again enhancing
business creation stability.
Limitations and implications are bound by the availability of EE and ecosystem
data on HEI web sites, providing the opportunity of future research to validate these
findings. Such future research may well include interviews with significant
stakeholders from the leading HEIs, providing in depth data about successful EEPs
and entrepreneurship ecosystems. Furthermore, future research may use this data to
evaluate the emergence of entrepreneurial universities in an Australian context.
On a broader and national scale, further research is required on business creation
stability (Reynolds, 2015) in an Australian context. We also recommend further
research on using alternative models than the EEP framework, such as teaching
models designed by Fayolle and Gailly (2008).
References
Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) (2014), “Learning standards, ABDC”, available at:
www.abdc.edu.au/pages/learning-standards.html (accessed November 26, 2014).
Australian Qualifications Framework (2013), “Developing learning outcomes”, available at:
www.aqf.edu.au (accessed November 26, 2014).
Balan, P. and Metcalfe, M. (2012), “Identifying teaching methods that engage entrepreneurship
students”,Education+Training, Vol. 54 Nos 8/9, pp. 368-384.
Berg, B.L. (2009), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 7th ed., Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Blenker, P., Elmholdt, S.T., Frederiksen, S.H., Korsgaard, S. and Wagner, K. (2014), “Methods in
entrepreneurship education research: a review and integrative framework”,Education
+Training, Vol. 56 Nos 8/9, pp. 697-715.
Cheng, M.Y., Wai, S.C. and Amir, M. (2009), “The effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in
Malaysia”,Education+Training, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 555-566.
Coviello, N.E. and Jones, M.V. (2004), “Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship
research”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19 No. 16, pp. 482-508.
Davidsson, P. (2015), “Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurial nexus: a
re-conceptualisation”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 30, pp. 674-695.
1032
ET
57,8/9
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
Douglas, E.J. (2013), “Reconstructing entrepreneurial intentions to identify predispositions for
growth”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 633-651.
European Commission (EC) (2015), “Entrepreneurship education: a road to success”, European
Union, Luxembourg, June/July.
Fayolle, A. (2010), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 3: International
Perspectives, Edward Elgar, Boston, MA.
Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2008), “Teaching models and learning processes in
ntrepreneurship education”,Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 32 No. 7,
pp. 569-593.
Fetters, M., Greene, P. and Rice, M.P. (2010), The Development of University-Based
Entrepreneurship Ecosystems, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Frederick, H. (2011), “Entrepreneurial universities in Victoria”,Proceedings of the 9th AGSE
Entrepreneurship Research Exchange,Freemantle,February.
Gibb, A. (2010), “Compendium of pedagogies for teaching entrepreneurship”, available at: www.
ncge.com (accessed November 26, 2014).
Harte, V. and Stewart, J. (2012), “Develop.evaluate.embed.sustain: enterprise education for keeps”,
Education+Training, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 330-339.
Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2000), From Andragogy to Heutagogy, Ultibase, Melbourne.
Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2013), Self-Determined Learning, Bloomsbury, London.
Isenberg, D. (2011), “The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic
policy: principles for cultivating entrepreneurship”,Proceedings of the Institute of
International and European Affairs,Dublin,May 12.
Jones, C. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education: revisiting our role and its purpose”,Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 500-513.
Jones, C. (2011), Teaching Entrepreneurship to Postgraduates, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Jones, C., Matlay, H. and Maritz (2012), “Enterprise education: for all, or just some?”,Education
+Training, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 813-824.
Jones, C., Matlay, H., Penaluna, K. and Penaluna, A. (2014a), “Claiming the future of enterprise
education”,Education+Training, Vol. 56 Nos 8/9, pp. 716-732.
Jones, C., Matlay, H., Penaluna, K. and Penaluna, A. (2014b), “Claiming the future of enterprise
education”,Education+Training, Vol. 56 Nos 8/9, pp. 764-775.
Lackeus, M. (2015), “Entrepreneurship in education, what, why, when, how”, Entrepreneurship
360 background paper, OECD, Paris.
McAuliffe, M. and Winter, A. (2013), “Distance education and the application of academagogy:
a case study”,International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 1-15.
Maritz, P.A. and Brown, C. (2013), “Illuminating the black box of entrepreneurship education
programs”,Education+Training, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 234-252.
Maritz, P.A. and Donovan, J. (2015), “Entrepreneurship and innovation”,Education+Training,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 74-87.
Maritz, P.A., de Waal, G.A., Buse, S., Herstatt, C., Machlachlam, R. and Heidemann, A. (2013),
“Innovation education programs: towards a conceptual framework”,European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 166-182.
Matlay, H. (2008), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 382-396.
1033
EE in
Australian
universities
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
Matlay, H. (2009), “Entrepreneurship education in the UK, a critical analysis of stakeholder
involvement and expectations”,Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
Vol. 16, pp. 355-368.
Matlay, H. and Carey, C. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a longitudinal
perspective”,Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 252-263.
Moburg, K., Vestergaard, L., Fayolle, A., Redford, D., Thomas, C., Singer, S., Sailer, K. and
Filip, D. (2014), “How to assess and evaluate the influence of entrepreneurship
education”,ASTEE Project, The Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship –Young
Entrepreneurs, EU, July.
Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F. and Cornwall, J.R. (2013), Entrepreneurship Programs and the Modern
University, Edward Elgar.
Neck, H. and Greene, P. (2011), “Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Nekka, H. and Fayolle, A. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education and ethnic minorities:
the case of North African entrepreneurs in France”, in Fayolle, A. (Ed.), Handbook
of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Vol 3, International Perspectives. Edward
Elgar, Boston, MA.
O’Connor, A. (2013), “A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy:
meeting government and economic purpose”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 28,
pp. 546-563.
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010), Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries,
Game Changers, and Challengers, Wiley, NJ.
Penaluna, K., Penaluna, A. and Jones, C. (2012), “The context of enterprise education: insights into
current practices”,Industry & Higher Education, Vol. 26 Nos 4/5, pp. 163-175.
Petridou, E., Sarri, A. and Kyrgidou, L.P. (2009), “Entrepreneurship education in higher
educational institutions: the gender dimensions”,Gender in Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 286-309.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of evidence”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 479-489.
Rae, D. (2010), “Universities and enterprise education: responding to the challenge of the
new era”,Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 591-606.
Reynolds, P.D. (2015), “Business creation stability: why is it so hard to increase
entrepreneurship?”,Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, Vol. 10 Nos 5-6,
pp. 321-475.
Ries, E. (2011), The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to
Create Radically Successful Businesses, Random House, New York, NY.
Solomon, G. (2007), “An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States”,Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 168-182.
Van Gelderen, M., Kautonen, T. and Fink, M. (2015), “From entrepreneurial intentions to actions:
self-control and action-related doubt, fear, and eversion”,Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 30, pp. 655-673.
Vestergaard, L., Moberg, K. and Jorgensen, C. (2012), Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in
Denmark –2011, The Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship, Ejskovsgade.
Walshok, M.L. and Shapiro, J.D. (2014), “Beyond tech transfer: a more comprehensive approach to
measuring the entrepreneurial university”,Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence
and Growth, Vol. 2 No. 16, pp. 1-36.
1034
ET
57,8/9
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
Further reading
Hart, T. (2001), From Information to Transformation, Peter Lang, New York, NY.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007b), “Stimulating entrepreneurial learning: integrating experiential
and collaborative approaches to learning”,Management Learning, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 211-233.
Corresponding author
Dr Alex Maritz can be contacted at: amaritz@swin.edu.au
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
1035
EE in
Australian
universities
Downloaded by Swinburne University of Technology At 19:08 31 May 2016 (PT)
