Educating for (societal) entrepreneurship By Professor Anders W Johansson School of Business and Economics Linnaeus University, Växjö [email protected] and PhD-student Erik Rosell School of Business and Economics Linnaeus University, Växjö [email protected]

Paper to be presented at the ICSB conference 16-18th June 2011

1

Abstract In more and more countries entrepreneurship education is celebrated as a high-way for future wealth creation undertaken by upcoming generations. However, there is a strong debate in pedagogy over what entrepreneurship education really means. This paper seeks to contribute to the ongoing discussion about what is actually possible to accomplish in entrepreneurship education. This is done by examining an effort to introduce education for entrepreneurship in the academic context as well as by comparing this effort with a non-academic effort to train for entrepreneurship. The text draws from teacher‟s experiences from the academic context (a business school) as well as from the non-academic context. In this way the text represents reflecting practitioners. Similarities and differences between the two contexts are explored trough an arranged student-exchange and reflected upon in this text. The conclusion is that the concept of societal entrepreneurship seems to conceptualize education for entrepreneurship better than traditional entrepreneurship emphasizing new venture creation. ___________

Introduction and Problem Formulation

There is today a growing consensus about the value of entrepreneurship education (Colette et al 2005). Stevenson and Lundström (2005) in their global survey identify entrepreneurship education as one of six areas of entrepreneurship policy. In more and more countries entrepreneurship education is celebrated as a high-way for future wealth creation undertaken by upcoming generations. However, there is a strong debate in pedagogy over what entrepreneurship education really means, if it is – or should be - a straight forward way of teaching the youngsters how to start a new company or if it is or should refer to a pedagogical philosophy which not necessarily need to lead to the creation of new companies (Berglund, and Holmgren 2008). Even more fundamentally Fiet (2001) noted an “ongoing debate in the entrepreneurship academy about whether we can actually teach students to be entrepreneurs” (see also Matlay 2006). To assure the quality of academic education the extent to which it is grounded in research has become a corner stone. Evidence-based medicine, referring to principles from natural science about how to find a safe ground for medical treatments have travelled into the social science as well. Applied to business schools this means that the more solid research about entrepreneurship, the better the business school will be in educating students for

2

entrepreneurship. However, as others already have stated, we might need to consider whether we educate about, for or in enterprise (Taatila 2010). The academic education might be successful in educating about and even in entrepreneurship and still be unsuccessful in educating students how to become entrepreneurs. And if the academic education is not suitable for educating for entrepreneurship, is there a space for non-academic education for entrepreneurship?

Purpose

This paper seeks to contribute to the ongoing discussion about what is actually possible to accomplish in entrepreneurship education by examining an effort to introduce education for entrepreneurship in the academic context as well as by comparing this effort with a nonacademic effort to train for entrepreneurship. It will draw from teacher‟s experiences from this academic context (a business school) and as well from the non-academic context (The SIP Network). These two contexts are currently united by way of an ongoing interactive research project involving both the academic institution as well as an independent organization working with (among other things) educating societal entrepreneurs on a nonacademic basis. The business school has since ten years offered the education program “Enterprising and Business Development” (EBD). This program uses a different pedagogical idea compared to other education programs as it seeks to encourage a thematic and practically oriented learning. The SIP Network has since 2008 been offering a one year education for societal entrepreneurship. Both the academically and the non-academically based education seems to demonstrate capacity in terms of encouraging students to become entrepreneurs. Both programs have in common that the purpose is not to educate students how to start and run a company but to encourage entrepreneurial behavior in a much broader sense. This broader concept of educating for entrepreneurship is in line with the concept of societal entrepreneurship (Johannisson et al 2011).

3

Method

The underlying research project is based upon the action research tradition balancing a pragmatic and critical orientation (Johansson, and Lindhult 2008). The overall purpose is about organizing societal entrepreneurship. One of the authors of this paper has in the role of doctoral student participated in several activities run by SIP. This way he has been involved in running different SIP projects as if he had been employed by SIP. This interaction is the empirical base for his thesis. The more specific empirical base for this article is the EBDeducation program and the SIP-education for societal entrepreneurship. This paper is written by us two researchers who are also teachers on the EBD-program. The authors are drawing partly from their own direct involvement as teachers in the EBD-program but also from previously published papers about the EBD-program. Additionally, the text draws upon reflections written by practitioners employed by the SIP-network. In this way the text also represents reflecting non-academic practitioners. The text is structured in the following way. First the EBD-program is described and the experiences and dilemmas involved with introducing and sustain this program. After that the SIP-program is described. Then an arranged encounters between the two education contexts, when students from the academic context were invited to the non-academic context and vice versa, is described. This is followed by reflections from both the academic and non-academic teachers involved.

Educating for Entrepreneurship in the Academic Context – the EBD-Program

Växjö university (now Linnaeus university) started the study- program “Enterprising and Business Development” (EBD) in the year 2000. The ambition was to create an alternative to the existing education program in business administration. Inspiration was found in the small business programs that had existed earlier (in the 1970ies and 1980ies) and that was known for their close collaboration with the local small businesses in the region. Teachers in 4

entrepreneurship also expressed a frustration with the fact that entrepreneurship as a subject was introduced late on the existing program in business administration (as an option on the advanced level). The ambition was instead to create a new three year study- program where the subject of entrepreneurship could be developed over a longer period of time. An important point of departure for the team of teachers that got involved with the new program was a personally felt frustration over some aspects of the established or dominating way to organize and perform higher education. The ambition was to combine the scientific language and practice with other languages and practices (e.g. the everyday- world of organizations and the life- world of the student). The combination of theory, practice and personal experience was seen as important and the program was developed with the aim of making all of these different kinds of knowledge possible to develop for the students. This knowledge should then be put in context and communicated to others. The development of the program was built on a basic understanding of entrepreneurial education. Some important lessons were that; 1) it is problematic to formally educate students for entrepreneurship, because entrepreneurship is not a cognitive issue it‟s about something else, 2) entrepreneurship is a process that is developed in a certain context, thus it is not about personal characteristics, but it is about creating in relation to other actors in that context, 3) entrepreneurship is about organizing differently regardless if it is about a business process or in the daily life to invent new ways of doing practical tasks. The concept of entrepreneurship was broadened to include both the traditional market- oriented view as well as an understanding of entrepreneurship as something that is performed in the „everyday- life‟ of individuals. The concept of „enterprising‟ was used in order to illustrate this broadened concept of entrepreneurship. The team that developed the program shared the view that entrepreneurship on the market is developed out of these kinds of „everyday‟ activities. Based on these (and other) lessons, it was concluded that the education program should focus on action, creation of alternatives, and the ability to at the same time connect and relate to resources in the learning context. Instead of telling of the world as it is, the ambition was to promote experimentation and the students practicing of their own. (Jonsson, and Jonsson 2002) A team of teachers were then formed, representing different subjects in business administration, law, information science, social psychology and economics. This team manifested one basic idea with the program; it should be cross- disciplinary. A group of 5

managers formed an advisory board that helped formulate the expectations on the students skills, knowledge areas and attitudes. They also helped describe a target future position for the student- that of a project leader. (Kans 2009)

The Basic Principles of the EBD-Program

Initially, four basic principles was formulated in order to simplify the concrete program development work and in order to communicate the basic idea with the program to new teachers. After ten years, when almost everyone of the initial team of teachers working with the program have been replaced, those principles are still built in to the structure of the program. 1)Learning takes place in the space that is created between the student, the university and a partner organization. From the very first weeks of the education the students work in groups and have a partner organization. The pedagogical idea behind this bridging is that the student right from the start ideally find them selves in an environment that resembles the one they will work in when the education is finished. The students are also seen to benefit from training their ability to speak different languages at the same time, i.e. to express themselves both in an academic language and in a more practical language when presenting their projects at their partner organisations. The more abstract and general language of theory is combined with the more contextualised language of the partner organisation and the situated problems handled there. The ambition is that each group has the same partner organization for at least two semesters. A longer time- period together with the same partner organization is beneficial in several ways. It could even be seen as necessary in order for the students to be able to create contextual understanding, i.e. to get a rich and deep understanding of what is happening in the new social environment that the partner organisation is. 2) Learning is stimulated by the investigation of themes. The world that we are preparing our students for does not follow the logic of the disciplines that the academy is divided into. The ambition with the EBD- program is to encourage a more holistic view by studying themes and not disciplines. The themes follow logically the life- cycle of an organisation. The program starts with themes connected to the generation of ideas and the creation of projects. Then follows a theme related to managing and developing an existing organisation. Finally themes 6

related to “down- sizing”, renewal and internationalisation follows. In every theme the idea is that the students together with their partner organization create or take part in a relevant project related to the current theme. Each theme is built up by all the disciplines included in the program (social psychology, law, informatics, economics, and business administration). 3) The learning process is steered through the formulation and design of tasks and examination forms. The examination activities on the program can be divided in two kinds or categories. There are discipline examinations, that is examinations related to the disciplines that build up a theme. It is only been possible for the students to get two grades on these kinds of examinations; “pass” or “failure”. The dominating examination when it comes to time and effort is the so called theme examinations. Here the students work with a project that they themselves formulate together with members from their partner organisation and tutors from the university. The project is supposed to relate to the theme and here workshops at the university and close contacts to the partner organization are important processes. The theme examinations have a higher weight, i.e. more credits are assigned to a completed theme examination. This is the only kind of examination where the students can get the grade “pass with distinction”. This is an important signal telling the students that it is here that they show that they can formulate relevant questions, search for and integrate relevant knowledge from different disciplines and integrate aspects into wholeness. 4) Learning is a continuing process. The theme- based structure creates a different organisation of the learning process. One common way is for students to take disciplinebased courses in a pre- planned sequel. With the theme structure follows a different approach. The program begins with an overall and process- based picture of an organisation. With every theme each discipline returns and adds- on some more knowledge. Thus, each discipline follows the students through the whole tree years. On the EBD-program you as a teacher have three years to discuss what you normally do in a couple of month. One important idea is to promote learning by stimulating reflections over how the learning process is organised on an individual level. Thus, not only the question „what is learned‟ is considered to be important, but equally important is the question „how do I learn‟? In the beginning of the program, much time was devoted to the study planning process of the students. Every student gets his/ her handbook containing the schedule and the examination tasks. Based on this overview the students are supposed to plan and continually reflect upon their own learning process, i.e. how much time they devote to the different tasks. From the first day, the message to the students is that they themselves are responsible for their own learning process. The ambition is that the 7

students will come to see that they are not passive receivers of knowledge whether it comes from teachers of the university or the partner organisation. They themselves are responsible for creating knowledge. They are also responsible for making the knowledge- creating process happen, i.e. they can not wait for someone else to organise the process for them.

Education for Entrepreneurship in the Non-Academic Context

The SIP Network is a network of six Swedish national NGO:s for youngsters. It started around the new millennium, about the same time the EBD-program started. It was a bunch of youngsters who started to do fun things together. They started a national youth society aiming at supporting young people‟s ideas. From that point the network rapidly grew and developed different branches. One of the six branches is the education “Societal Entrepreneurs” which started in the fall of 2008. The education program was funded for three years. This year (2010/2011) is the last year that the program will run. The education is for one year and the SIP Network is arranging the course in cooperation with the Grimslöv Folk High School. No academic degree is offered. The course is advertised for anyone who wants to run projects, start a business or organizing an event. There is no distinction made between those who want to start a business and those who want to run a project with public funding. The idea is that the education should benefit the student as well as the society. The course is individually tailor-made. The student can either come to the education with own ideas looking for support to realize them or can participate in existing assignments and develop his/her own ideas during the course. The aim of the course is to provide possibilities for personal development. Mandatory literature is a book about “Personal entrepreneurship” written by two young entrepreneurs. Both have academic degrees but the book is inspirational and non-academic in its language. The content of the course is organized around different themes, such as information processing, societal issues, leadership, networking, personal development, digital communication, marketing, project management, business and enterprising and creativity.

8

The education program begins with a period where the students and the SIP staff get to know each other personally. This is done through various social events. One important activity is that the students all gets the opportunity to perform their own lectures to the rest of the class on subjects that they are particularly interested in. Just to mention a few examples, students have lectured on the Brazilian dance Capoeira, how to make a tattoo, medieval games or the design of a chair included in the product range of a small business. The lectures often include a section where all participants get to try on their own. This kind of event reflects one important ambition of the education that SIP performs; the themes and subjects are ideally generated by the participants themselves and later developed in the concrete form of a project during the education. One member of the SIP staff expresses this ambition when she says that; “I wanted a class full of teachers, I did not want to be the teacher. I wanted to take care of all the knowledge and experiences that all these students brought with them”. Another expression of this ambition is more physical. The education administrators of SIP sit together with the students in one open office. They do their work in the same room as the students and they often interact the whole working day with the students. They eat together and have coffee together. There is a minimum of separation and distance between the SIP staff and the students. The different events on the program (for example lectures and workshops) are often performed in collaboration with other organizations in society. The folk high school is an important collaborator. Some scheduled events are performed together with students on other courses at the folk high school and personnel from the folk high- school visits SIP in order to present material and perform lectures or workshops. In a similar way members of SIP interact with the staff and other students on the folk high school. Collaborations are also developed with other organizations in the surrounding society, for example other associations with a social mission. Here, the SIP students perform field trips and members of the associations are invited to present themselves and their organizations at SIP. In this way, many subjects related to starting a business or project is presented by organizations that support such activities (for example banks and support- organizations for young entrepreneurs or business ventures). The SIP students also have periods of internship where they visit an other organization for a longer period of time (a couple of weeks). Last but not least, over the last ten years a lot of people have passed through SIP working in their different projects, sometimes as employees and sometimes in their leisure time. Those contacts are often sustained over time, and later they can be invited to create or take part of events on the 9

education program. In this way the network of contacts and relations that build up SIP as an organization is presented to the students during the one year education. This network reaches all sectors of society, the business sector as well as the public and civil sector. As stated in the course presentation, the ambition is to involve all society and everything that is happening there in the educational room that is created during the year. This can be seen as one explanation of why the term “societal entrepreneurship” is used by SIP to present the education. There is however another way to make sense of the connection between entrepreneurship and society. A follow up after the first year of the education showed that many students where fascinated by the fact that they had worked together during the year despite their different backgrounds and interests. As stated by one student; “Everybody is so different, and still we have been able to cooperate. That is our strengths!” This turned out to be a common theme that a number of students reflected on when asked what they felt that the education had contributed with, it was also a theme that was a bit surprising as it was not an explicitly stated goal of the education. This theme can be seen as one important result of the activities and projects that SIP performs. By bringing together people that are different in terms of age, cultural background, interest etc. and perfor collaborative and practical work in groups, one result is that cultural differences can be worked through and overcome. This is another illustration of the meaning of “societal entrepreneurship”. By using entrepreneurship, understood as the process of collaborately perform project work and develop through practice and discussions the kinds of abilities that are seen to be important in order to get things going in an energetic and committed way, SIP seem to have realized that this in itself promote some aspects of what the society is often said to bee in need of; integration through mutual understanding and respect for differences.

Teacher Reflections from the SIP-Staff

The following quotes represent the voices of the SIP teachers as to how they assess and understand their education. We as academic authors will not by our interpretations try to state how theses voices „should or could‟ be understood, but leave them as declarations from the

10

practitioners about the SIP education. About personal development We could have called the course personal entrepreneurship or personal development. The course where you aquire self-confidence and get a better self esteem but no one would have applied for that course as it sound very scary or ugly. When we start to talk about personal development many are shivering. What we actually do is that we almost exclusively work with personal development throughout a whole year without our student being aware of that and without their conscious choice, because we know this is what is needed. This is what we ourselves need. As soon we feel that something is getting tough here we try to view it as a challenge, as development, we are simply growing. You need someone who give other people challenges. You also need someone who supports and tell you that you will accomplish. You need to learn more about why you do what you do and why you react the way you do. Personal development is the most important in our course. If we take this part away it will become as any theoretical education and then I don‟t think we can call it an education for entrepreneurship, then it is more like a theoretical project and business education with societal focus. It is not entrepreneurship if you don‟t work with the personality.

About the attitude of the student The course Societal Entrepreneurship her at SIP is very exciting and very good in many respects. It depends very much upon the person taking this course, it can give a substantial contribution, so you need to recognize which people attend the course. It is good if the person who take this course has an idea about what to work with, a certain subject or simply a ready made idea. At least that you sense that you don‟t want to travel the “usual way”. Even if you don‟t have an idea you will be able to learn a lot whatever person you are, but I think it is easier to get more out the course if you can apply it on something. In this course you will learn how to become a better leader, improve your understanding of how groups are functioning and how you yourself function within a group, to learn to make contact with different types of persons, take own responsibility and own initiative, to prioritize and to create opportunities. All get coaching on individual level, if you are uncertain about what you want you will be able to reflect upon that here. From the student it is required positive thinking, to dare to look ahead, to dare to make decisions, to be generous about one self, to aspire development, to be receptive. In fact I don‟t think you can be educated in societal entrepreneurship. But you can get tools to work better as a societal entrepreneur. There are certain things you can learn like tools, models, networking etc. But to take a second step personal driving force and personal qualities are needed.

About equipping 11

I think that at least you can inspire, teach people to use the tools to become a societal entrepreneur. The course offers the students a forum, a storm bell where they can work. You can‟t fail here, this is what you do when you go to the bank and take a big loan and then it collapses. Apart from that there is no room for failure but everything is completely possible. We are like an experimental factory and this is what we want to communicate, at least I feel very much for this. Outside, in the real society, you don‟t have the time to do these things, you often have a full time or a part time job and are fully occupied in your brain by this process, or if you study something else also. It is very difficult as an entrepreneur to develop your ideas. Here you can do this, it is high speed and you have free space for your ideas. There are people here from eight in the morning until six in the evening. As employees we can appear as good role models and share our experiences but no one is actually an expert. What we can do is to get a hold on different aspects of how to view societal entrepreneurship, how to interpret this concept, how to inspire people to dare to take initiatives, to dare to be drifty, to dare to realize ideas, to dare to test ideas and then refrain from realizing them. We try to break with routine patterns people carry with them, it is something of a rehabilitating period here to brake with the classical way of thinking nine to five, routines that have always existed and always will, that certain ideas must be more profitable than others and so on. We try to think more like: “OK, this is your driving force”. We fill find a solution after that, not that we are looking for the most profitable thing to do. We are not teachers, we are more like inspirers and coordinators for all the resources we can find around us in society and use as impulses in the course. We try to be more dynamic, more floating than a pure theoretical education. We mix theory and practice in a way I think is somewhat different. We also experience that our course can be frustrating for student, they get some abstinence, it is a little bit like rehabilitation, they miss the fixed routines from the schooling system. It has it‟s pros and cons to be innovative.

Student Encounters between the Two Environments

When we first got together to discuss our overall project, one of the first things we thought of was to arrange a student exchange. Our respective education localities where at the time situated approximately half a kilometer from each other. We both had about 20 students that all worked in one way or the other with projects relating to other actors in society. We discussed different ideas in relation to the student exchange, ranging from getting together to discuss and present the different projects or trying to conduct common project between the students. The SIP network is used to bring actors together in various kinds of events in their different projects as well as in their education program. This is one important method used by 12

the SIP network in order to create change and produce results in relation to the different objectives they work with (for example equality, entrepreneurship or social integration). On the EBD- program there is a tradition of working with student- exchanges between the different years of the program, and between the program and other kinds of educations. The course plan of the third semester even states that the students should get together with other students and conduct a so called „peer- teaching‟, that is communicate their knowledge to other students in order to train themselves in the role of a teacher. Given these circumstances the idea of creating a student exchange seemed obvious and natural to us. Although more loosely coupled to systematic research, we thought that the interaction between our students could be a source of reflection for us as teachers. Or even if this was not to be the case, we imagined that this could be a smaller and more practical part of our overall project that did not necessarily had to be documented and described in a traditional research format. In retrospect, this event did show to be interesting in an unexpected way. We started to interact in a small way in order to get to know each other better. The academy invited SIP to one seminar and one lecture in entrepreneurship. A gust lecture for the EBDprogram was also arranged where two employees by SIP presented themselves and their organization and projects. SIP invited the EBD-program to some of their activities. One of the authors of this text attended two class- discussions at SIP and held lectures for their students. The overall impression after these interactions was that we worked in quite different ways despite the similarities that we initially saw. Our high expectations where somewhat tuned down and we started to realize that the meeting between our students could result in a similar cultural clash. We continued the discussions on how to create something together the coming semester. Our planning process was ambivalent. In retrospect we see it as a process where we tried to find ways to combine our logics, each side holding on to the way that they where used to work. We both took small steps towards each- others different suggestions, but our cultural differences often created misunderstandings. The university has few obligatory classes scheduled whereas SIP has almost everything mandatory. For the EBD- students, the exchange was not related to any examination and logically had to be presented as an interesting option that the students could choose to participate in on the same terms as all other student activities outside class. For the SIP network it was more logical to present the exchange as part of the education, that is on equal terms as other activities on the program. The non- academic education was built on a logic where the coordinators more actively 13

created diverse events, lectures and study visits for their students, whereas the coordinators in the academic context are used to rely on the student organizations when it comes to other kinds of events than pure lectures. In summary, these cultural differences produced a situation where SIP had a strong commitment to the exchange whereas the academic context regarded it more as one opportunity among the many kinds of free- time student activities arranged on campus. Despite this, we arrived at a situation where we had planned four different common events. On two occasions the students where supposed to get to know each- other and their interests and projects. On two occasions we planned guest lectures with a follow- up meeting for common reflections and discussions. Our first common event was a disappointment. It started with a common guest lecture in the center of Växjö. SIP arranged this lecture and tickets were sold to the public. Tickets were reserved for EBD- students and for SIPs students. In advance the EBD-students were asked to put a name on a list if they was interested in going. Almost everybody wrote down their name, but only a few actually turned up. The lecture was about „personal entrepreneurship‟ and was based on a book written by two entrepreneurs. The book and the lecture was inspirational and delt with the questions of how to get things done in your life. It was also about how to have a good time and feeling good when you try to get things done your way. The day after the lecture we had booked a lecture room at the university where we all was going to meet. Only about one third of the EBD- class had attended the lecture the day before and even fewer came to the follow up the next day. On the other hand all of the SIP students came to the university making us about 30-35 people. Here, another cultural difference created disturbance. The SIP-students showed up at ten a clock while the EBD-students automatically showed up a quarter past ten, as the academic culture prescribes. This only enforced the impression that the EBD- students were uninterested in the exchange activities. The situation had developed into one where the SIP- students where disappointed and the EBD- students seemed to be uninterested and unfamiliar with this kind of event on the program. In this way the exchange activities continued. Only a few EBD-students chose to take part in the activities and the whole idea seemed to be a total failure, producing disappointment, irritation and confusion at best. Under the lead of SIP, the exchange project however took a turn that the staff from the academy did not expect.

14

Some of the few EBD- students that did take part in the activities showed a real interest in the kinds of projects and education that SIP was working with. One student who attended the first gust lecture where SIP presented their organization, later contacted SIP in order to discuss and develop her own interest in equality. She had experiences from projects similar to the one that SIP presented on the lecture. The different persons working at SIP are easy to communicate with and they are open to invite new people to their activities. The EBD- student continued to interact with people at SIP. She eventually took part in a project run by SIP where young female entrepreneurs in the region were supported and she helped arrange a conference on social media. She also participated together with SIP when they presented their organization at an exhibition. Being an active blogger, she invited people from SIP to write about entrepreneurship on her blog. Another student also built a relationship with people from SIP and she took part in some of the SIP-students activities and finally went on a exchange project for young entrepreneurs together with people from SIP to Portugal. In this way, a couple of the EBD-students took the invitation from SIP and started to „enterprise‟ together with people from SIP. This kind of development was unexpected for the academic staff. For the SIP network, however, it was a realization of what they had in mind from the very beginning.

Teacher Reflections from the SIP-Staff

The text so far represents the way we as academics understood the interaction between the two contexts. In the following section we will once more give room for the reflections of the SIP teachers which again will stand on their own without our interpretation. We will however in the concluding session of the paper make our concluding interpretations of the experiences from the interaction between the academic and the non-academic context. On purpose I firmly believe that as a teacher you should be a role model. Both in our work with educating for societal entrepreneurship and in a project we carried out about a year ago for girls who want to start their own business, it has always been taken for granted by me that those who have worked with theses projects and courses should be enterprising people. I am not a fan of academic education and specially not in entrepreneurship and that type of self-realization and courses in creativity. I can sometimes feel that teachers in entrepreneurship and business in the 15

academic and folk high schools, who never have stepped into an business firm or being enterprising themselves but is only knowledgeable about a lot of theories, often I wonder how inspiring these people are. For sure they are knowledgeable but for me the most important is when you teach something that you know what you are talking about and that you have your own experience and can identity with the person in front of you and see that “where you are now I was also a couple of years ago and where I am, you also want to come or at least in a similar direction”. For me it is a requirement to have the experience of being an entrepreneur if you should teach entrepreneurship. It is also so that entrepreneurship is not something which is taught at the academic level, but what is taught is business administration or other types of disciplines and this is nothing I know very much about but if you talk about entrepreneurship in itself I think experience is required. The are not so many art teachers that doesn‟t like to draw. If you talk more about feelings, personal qualities and how you are as a person I think it is important that the one who teaches or tries to encourage the other person have made this experience herself. As the course in societal entrepreneurship is a course which not only has its focus on business firms we have tried to involve teachers both with experience from business firms as project leaders and other people engaged with different societal matters in the civic sector so that you get different role models. An angle of the question if it is possible to educate for entrepreneurship is “Could you educate to become creative, competitive, to use your feeling to create, to get new ideas and see opportunities?” This questions is not easy self-evident to give an yes answer to. It is not easy to EDUCATE in this! Yes, you can tell about and inform about how it is and how it should be. The student is sitting there obediently and listening, taking notes and is nodding in agreement. And when they leave the place someone might have a fancy that “now I have become more like an entrepreneurs because now I know!” but then I think they fool themselves. In fact I don‟t believe you can educate someone to become an entrepreneur. But instead I think you can stimulate a person to develop as a person and to go in a positive direction with regard to different key personal qualities. And this stimulus is not about getting more knowledge but it is about an experience of being the one in charge. Every person who wants to develop in the direction of becoming an entrepreneur must with dedication and discipline accept that he or she must get into the deep water over and over again. To be courageous, not giving up, to work long term, to see the success in the ant steps you can take forward when it comes to personal development. To develop as a person is probably one of the most hard things you need to do because you must accept the way it is and the possibility of failing, to meet resistance, to get your world view changed as well as your self image. And who really likes this?

16

Discussion

In this section we as authors will give our reflections on some key issues that emanate from ten years experience of introducing an education for entrepreneurship and ten years of experience behind the SIP organization as well as almost three years experience of the two contexts working together. The two educations have emerged in different ways. In the academic context the challenge has been to break with established traditions. As stated in the previous text the program was initiated out of a frustration with the traditional discipline based way to educate. In the non-academic context the education emerged as an extension of how the organization started. It was a matter of having fun and focusing on doing. One crucial question is; are the contexts successful in educating for entrepreneurship? No systematic evaluation has been made. There are however some anecdotal evidence pointing in that direction. The science park at the Linnaeus University has approached the EBD- program based on the observation that EBD- students seem to be well represented at the creative arena (a site where small businesses can rent an office) and the incubator for entrepreneurs. The team of teachers at the EBD- program sees it as a reward when a student is visible in the local media as a result of there own „enterprising‟. This happens often enough to internally uphold the belief that the program idea is worthwhile working with and develop. The SIP network has emerged locally as a publicly recognized creative arena especially for younger people. The SIP network is visible in the local press and known among the local public administration. People from SIP has for exaple during the 10 years that the network has existed been awarded the regional equality prize two times (in 2009 and in 2010) by the local authorities. The SIP network was also awarded the European enterprise award 2009 by the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional growth. Although anecdotal, circumstances like these seem to have earned the two contexts a local reputation as sites that are drawing together and taking care of people with a drive to make things happen by developing projects.

17

Similarities between the Contexts – indications of principles suitable to education for entrepreneurship

There are several similarities between the two contexts described in this text. We consider these similarities as principles that appear to be suitable to education for entrepreneurship. In this section some of those similarities are discussed. As the episode about the studentexchange illustrate, although apparent similarities can be identified, this still leaves room for quite different enactments of entrepreneurship between the two contexts. a) One important part of the pedagogical idea of both contexts is to promote experiential learning. Put in other words both contexts try to promote the students to start by doing on their own, weather „ doing‟ is understood in terms of practical action as is the case at SIP or also include searching for theoretical concepts and models as is the case by the academic context. By SIP the dominating logic or organization of the education is based on the students own practical work. There seems to be no other possibility for the students than to start by doing. By the EBD-program one ambition is to allow the students to experiment with the models and information that they read about and gather. The ambition to “start by doing” is also illustrated by the decision to let the students get involved with a partner organization from the very first weeks of the education. b) Both contexts work with themes instead of subjects or disciplines. This reflects a belief that „enterprising‟ involves and integrate many subjects at the same time, and that the ability to make a whole out of parts is more important in relation to entrepreneurship than a focus on or expertise in an isolated part of reality. c) To organize the education around many small projects are by both contexts seen as a suitable way to educate for entrepreneurship. This is related to the theme orientation described above. A project typically involves many perspectives and/ or disciplines at the same time. It also captures the meaning of entrepreneurship as understood by the two contexts, that is that entrepreneurship is about projecting something; it is about having a vision and realizing this vision together with others. More over, the project form is beneficial for the form of learning that is strived for, that is a learning that can include both theoretical knowledge as well as everyday experiences. 18

d) As illustrated above, SIP work with personal development at the core of their education. This is what it is all about according to SIP. This idea is also visible by the EBD program, most explicitly in the decision to include social psychology as one important discipline on the program. One of the ideas of social psychology is to let the students reflect about themselves in relation to the group and in relation to society. In this way, the ambition is to let the student‟s personal development be made into one important subject on the program. Ideally the students themselves should be able to see and understand their own development during the three years. e) Both contexts express the understanding that the everyday life of the students is an important ground for learning. This is the base for the kinds of results that are later on measured as signs of entrepreneurship, for example the creation of a new business venture. This understanding is expressed in an ambition to let the students own voices be heard and to tailor the education after the personalities and interests of the students. The SIP network is following this through in a quite extreme way. Here, the students as individuals are seen as the building blocks of the education. The education becomes whatever the students that year chooses to engage in. By the academic context there has been a lot of struggle to keep up the ambition not to standardize the education. This idea was initially stated in the following way; ”our task as educators are, as we see it, to stimulate the learning process by creating a supporting curriculum and a learning environment that advocate that learning can be done in different ways. That is, an individual way of learning depending on each individual‟s conditions, preferences and at the moment developed abilities” (Jonsson, and Jonsson 2002; 4). f) The relationship to other organizations in society could in both contexts be seen as dialogical, that is the surrounding society is not present only as an object to study but rather contributes in an interactive way to the realization of the education. By the SIP network this is more obvious and elaborated. Here, the education is performed in society and to some extent by the society. The students ideally contribute to society through their own projects. The ambition by the EBD-program is to create bridges so that the students can bring their knowledge to the partner organizations. The partners in their turn bring their knowledge to the students and ideally also to the whole program through guest lectures and participation in work-shops. The program is ideally also giving something back to the partner organizations seen as a group. In the beginning, the program was an arena for conference-like events where

19

students and partners contributed and participated together. For example a one day conference on design was arranged in collaboration at the campus. A final and more general conclusion is that those planning and conducting education for entrepreneurship themselves need to be entrepreneurial in their thinking and acting. Entrepreneurship for education is to a large extent a question of building an entrepreneurial structure, i.e. a structure that makes it possible to let the entrepreneurial spirit of the students free.

Tensions within the academic context and between the two contexts a) The academy is primarily organized by disciplines and sub-disciplines. The EBD program cuts across the borders between disciplines. This means that the EBD teachers have to behave differently than the usual way. As a consequence the workload of the teachers tend to get higher which in turn must be compensated by an extra-ordinary motivation, a whole-hearted belief that this is worth the extra effort. Also teachers have to cope with a culture that generally does not value this kind of pedagogy. To some degree this is compensated by responses from students and external stake-holders. This is the same as to conclude that in general the academic context is not oriented towards education for entrepreneurship. Moreover, there is an in-built antagonism between the academic discipline orientation and the in this paper articulated principles suitable for education for entrepreneurship. b) Even if many similarities between the EBD program and the SIP education have been pointed out it is also obvious that there are tensions as well. At a surface or rhetorical level from a SIP perspective the academic fascination with theory even as applied by the EBD program appears as more or less useless knowledge. The only knowledge which is useful is practical know-how knowledge, such knowledge that immediately leads to action. The long term aspect from the SIP perspective is primarily a question of personal development. The counter argument is that training and development in abstract (theoretical) thinking is also useful and necessary in the society. Those not trained in abstract thinking will not be able to get access to certain parts of the society. One might add that those trained in abstract thinking might also be excluded from parts of the society where the SIP practical knowledge focus is a key to access. The access that follows abstract thinking is arguably not due to the capacity for

20

such thinking in itself as it is also due to the kind of legitimization that academic education offers in different parts of society.

The Benefit of Societal Entrepreneurship as a Concept in Education

A final conclusion is that “societal entrepreneurship” (Johanssion et al, 2011) seems to conceptualize education for entrepreneurship better than traditional entrepreneurship emphasizing new venture creation. a) The forms in which entrepreneurship is enacted is open. It does not matter whether the student is concerned with preparing him or herself to start a new firm or to work within an organization or in the civic society. This openness seems to be a stimulus in itself and helps to focus on the essentials of the entrepreneurial process – to make things happen. This point could be described in terms of means and ends. On a system level the rational or end for entrepreneurship education is often conceptualized in terms of new business creation. Our argument is that there is a risk that this end gets overemphasized, leading to a view where educating entrepreneurs is translated in instrumental terms. What is needed from this perspective is instrumental knowledge related to the business form. We argue that the degrading of this desired end into a means, that is to see venture creation as a means to personal development and individual prosperity, and by acknowledging that there are other similar means to that end, gives a better focus when it comes to planning an education for entrepreneurship. More over, the chances that the students find energy in their own personal interest, their dreams and desires are greater if there is a more open view as to what exactly entrepreneurship can mean. We also believe that the kinds of abilities that are important when it comes to have the courage and motivation to create something new and change old structures are the same, no matter if it is about starting a business or working with a publicly funded project in the civil society or in the public sector. b) Societal entrepreneurship has a wider scope. Economic values goes hand in hand with social values. This reflects one belief held by both contexts. Real life projects are complex processes where heterogeneous actors with heterogeneous goals come together. This often means that economic rationalities and social objectives have to be worked with at the same time. This seemingly paradoxical situation is taken into account by the concept of societal 21

entrepreneurship, and we believe that this is something good as it prepares the students for the all but clear cut and simple reality of leading a project work. c) As illustrated by SIP, societal entrepreneurship can mean that one important end result of entrepreneurship education is that diversity is discussed and that students learn to practically handle and thus overcome cultural differences. Our society is fragmented and heterogeneous. The ability to handle different perspectives, personalities and objectives and to be able to understand that things can be done in different ways, and that sense can be made in different ways seem to bee an important ability that can be trained and reflected upon during the education.

References Berglund, K., and Holmgren, C. (2008). “What do teachers do when they do entrepreneurship education? … and How can we ask about it?” International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 2, 4, 354-372. Colette, H., Hill, F., and Leitch, C. (2005). “Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I”, Education + Training, 47, 2, 98-111. Fiet, J.O. (2001). “The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship theory”, Journal of Business Venturing, 16,1, 101-117. Johansson, A.W. and Lindhult, E. (2008). “Emancipation or Workability? Critical versus pragmatic scientific orientation in action research”, Action Research, 6, 1, 95-115.

Johannisson, B., Johansson, A. W., Sundin, E., Berglund, K., Linderholm, M., Rosell, E., Schwartz, B., Stenberg, R., and Tillmar, M. (2011). “Organizing Societal Entrepreneurship- a cross Sectoral Challenge”, Work in Progress. Johnsson, C., and Johnsson, T. (2002). “Entrepreneurial learning- an informed way of learning. The case of Enterprizing and business development,” paper presented at the 12th Conference on Small Business Research in Kuopi, Finland, 2002).

22

Kans, L. (2009). “Enterprising and Business development- undervisning på annat vis”, in Från barkbröd till ciabatta- kreativitet och kontroll inom ekonomistyrning. Eds. K. Jonnergård, and R.G. Larsson, R.G. Växjö; Växjö University press. Matlay, H. (2006). “Researching entrepreneurship and education. Part 2: what is entrepreneurship education and does it matter?,” Education + Training, 48, 8/9, 704-718. Stevenson, L., and Lundström, A. (2005). ”Entrepreneurship Policy for the Future: Best practice Components,” in Keystones of Entrepreneurship Knowledge. Eds. Horst, King – Kauanui, Duffy, Blackwell Publishing. Taatila, V. P. (2010). “Learning entrepreneurship in higher education,” Education + Training, 52, 1, 48-61.

23