ICSB WORLD CONFERENCE 2000 Entrepreneurial SMEs – Engines for Growth in the New Millennium 7-10 JUNE 2000 Paula Kyrö, Professor , Jyväskylä university, Department of Economics B.O Box 35, FIN-00014 JYVÄSKYLÄ, FINLAND TEL. 358-9-2733551, FAX. 358-9-2757897, E-MAIL [email protected]

ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN A VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT SUMMARY By choosing this title I participate in the challenging scientific discussion: can entrepreneurship be learnt, and if so how. The presumption is that it can, and the main suggestion is that if we study the discipline of entrepreneurship, it should be studied and learned with entrepreneurial pedagogy. I approached my argumentation by addressing three questions: What is entrepreneurship? How does it relate to learning? And finally how can this entrepreneurial learning be applied to or carried out in a virtual environment? The first two questions were answered through conceptual analysis using a cultural perspective. The last one was answered through action research by presenting an actual experiment of how entrepreneurial pedagogy has been applied in the context of a virtual learning environment.

The solution to the first question produced three principles of entrepreneurial pedagogy, which were identified as entrepreneurial qualities, namely: 1. A holistic attitude towards the world 2. A holistic view of the human being and 3. the human being as an extraordinary, risk-taking, creative, free and responsible actor. When I compared these to various different learning paradigms it was found, however, that only in the present postmodern paradigm do these qualities seem to interest the science of education. It was also argued that these qualities are still fragmented and have not yet formed a holistic foundation for learning. It was therefore suggested that entrepreneurship could give something to learning theories as well as vice versa. It is not in fact any wonder that the question “can entrepreneurship be taught or not” has been posed, since with the theories that dominated in the modern era it would not have been possible. Only in the present postmodern transition have we found some tools for entrepreneurial learning. To demonstrate what kind of learning this is, the last question was answered by presenting first the development of a virtual environment, which has in fact been produced through entrepreneurial learning, and by presenting an experiment conducted through entrepreneurial pedagogy. Thus this study not only answers the three questions as a scientific dilemma, but also demonstrates how entrepreneurial leaning can actually take place. This is the main point in entrepreneurial learning. It is not only concerned with what entrepreneurship is, but rather with how entrepreneurial behaviour can be produced. In the future I hope we can achieve entrepreneurship education in both research and in pedagogy in practice.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN VIRTUAL A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT INTRODUCTION The challenging phenomenon of “entrepreneurship education in virtual a learning environment” can be approached through each of its components, i.e. entrepreneurship, learning and a virtual environment. I have chosen to start with the theme of this conference, entrepreneurship, then to proceed with learning and finally to combine these both into a virtual environment. These choices lead me to address three questions: What is entrepreneurship? How does it relate to learning? And finally how can this entrepreneurial learning be applied to or carried out in a virtual environment?

As the reader may have already noticed, I have taken it for granted that entrepreneurship can be learned. In this respect I represent the line of thought, that regards entrepreneurship not as a genetic but rather as a cultural phenomenon. Therefore I participate in the scientific discussion concerning the question as to whether entrepreneurship is an art or science, i.e. can it be taught or not. For me it can, since culture is always learned, and is at the same time collective and individual. Thus in this presentation I have made very elementary choices for the points of departure. The first two questions can be regarded as pedagogical bases and the third one as their application. Entrepreneurship and education have not usually been related to the same scientific knowledge base, rather the contrary. Entrepreneurship, as a new field in science, has established itself in economics. Education for its part has established its place as its own separate field in science. It is suggested, however, in this article that these two phenomena and their scientific knowledge bases have, in the present postmodern transition, a close relationship to each other. It can even be suggested that entrepreneurship provides education with those characteristics that are needed as construction material for a new emerging postmodern learning paradigm. By answering my three questions I hope I can also demonstrate and argue for entrepreneurship education, what it is and how it can take place. With these presumptions it is in fact reasonable to start with the phenomenon of entrepreneurship.

As always in entrepreneurship reality is made through and for action and interaction. This action combines resources in a novel way, not known before. That is how we have acted in this process in Finland. Together with nine universities and an expertise group representing different kinds of knowledge and reference groups we have actually built a virtual learning environment “Metodix” (2000) for entrepreneurial research and learning. While answering the last question I will use this case to demonstrate how we think it is possible to combine the three elements of entrepreneurial thinking and action, learning, and the possibilities offered by a virtual environment.

This development process has not been easy, since there are no right or wrong answers as to how to do it, but rather numerous different endeavours to make the best of it, to use the advantages created through virtual opportunities and at the same to avoid its limitations and disadvantages. Therefore I feel it is valuable to exchange experiences and not only to tell but rather to demonstrate what has been done in this field. From a methodological perspective the first two questions have been answered by using conceptual analysis and this last question through action theory (for action theory’s cyclical nature and its phases, see Suojanen 2000). At the moment we are about to finish the first cycle, which has taken place in the period 1997-2000. The reflection of this congress can be regarded as providing the reflection for the first cycle, giving us tools to proceed toward the second cycle taking place in 2000-2003.

WHAT IS ENTREPRENEURSHIP? When we describe the meaning and purpose of entrepreneurship as an ever-changing reflection of culture, as a phenomenon searching for new forms in the course of history, amazingly few differences can be found in the theories of its contributors (Kyrö 1996). They describe entrepreneurship as a special kind of management and ownership. The entrepreneur is a holistic, extraordinary human being who, by combining resources in a novel way, by applying new knowledge, taking risks and making decisions involved in that, creates something new (Barreto 1989, Dahmen & al. 1994, Kovalainen 1993, Kyrö 1999, Lovio 1993,Weber 1969)1. Some of the theories focus more on ownership, some on management. The major differences between contributors can be identified in the target they wanted to describe.

Entrepreneurship started its journey with the adventurer in the semantics of the 1100’s, (Haahti 1989, 214-216, Petrin 1991). The first meaning can be found from the French verb 'entreprende' in the twelfth century. It meant to do something, referring to action without any economic connotation. In England the terms adventurer and undertaker were used to denote an entrepreneur, followed from the 14th century onwards by such terms as projector and contractor. These terms referred to such functions and qualities as an exciting, unknown experience, at one's own risk and a certain task or assignment from the Crown.

These semantic descriptions were followed by scientific descriptions from the 18th century onwards. Each era produced its own models of entrepreneurship according to its specific needs. In each era the descriptions of entrepreneurship focused attention on new, emerging phenomena. In the transition from traditional to modern this target was on the one hand the economic process at the macro-level, on the other hand, the extraordinary

1 For a different approach to entrepreneurial learning and learning from entrepreneurship see e.g. Fiet 1999

individual producing this process. In the modern era the macro-level was lost and attention was directed toward the small enterprise, where management and ownership are manifested in the same entity. In the transition from modern to postmodern, entrepreneurship again found a new object, now a product of the modern era, the organisation. Thus time itself has produced three different kinds of present-day entrepreneurship: 1. The small enterprise, meaning the individual entrepreneur and his firm, 2. Intrapreneurship, meaning an organisation's collective behaviour, 3. Individual, self-oriented entrepreneurship, meaning an individual’s self-oriented behaviour. If we look at the scientific knowledge bases that can delineate the different forms of entrepreneurship in this transition, we can notice that, besides economics, this transition has also brought in the science of education. The three forms and their relationship to each other are illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: Different forms of entrepreneurship ( Kyrö 1999 ) The invention of the modern era, small business management and ownership, has its natural knowledge base in economics. Intrapreneurship, the organisation’s collective behaviour, has two different scientific knowledge bases. In economics it has been described by the latest organisation theories and strategic thinking (Argyris & al. 1978, Johannisson 1984, Juuti & Soikkanen1994, Kanter 1989, Keuning & Opheij 1994, Minzberg & Quinn 1991, Morgan 1968, Näsi 1991, Peters & Waterman 1982, Schein 1985). Learning theories comprise, however, another field that has focused its interest on this collective phenomenon. Many scientists in education have delineated the learning organisation, cultural perspective and team building (Halsey & al. Ed. 1997, Ruohotie & Grimmett ed. 1994, and 1996, Kauppi & al. 1994). Thus intrapreneurship has its knowledge base in both education and economics. Finally the oldest form and the very essence of entrepreneurship, its individual form, actually has its natural base in education. Economics doesn’t provide many tools for individual behaviour, while education has always studied learning and individual learners. As far as individual entrepreneurship is concerned, education has much to offer to the discussion about the different forms of entrepreneurship and vice versa.

In this presentation I focus my attention on the oldest form of entrepreneurship, the individual level, since learning, at whatever level and place it occurs always involves individuals. Whatever form entrepreneurship has taken in the course of history, it has always involved the individual, the human being as an extraordinary, free, holistic, risk-taking and self-supporting individual who is responsible for his own life and who through his own actions creates prosperity and welfare. He questions old hierarchies, rules and norms, and creates new ways of behaviour. This individual has the ability to perceive the environment in order to find its possibilities, to combine resources in an innovative way and to negotiate with the environment in order to get them. He has the ability of solving problems in unknown circumstances and to achieve success there. We can search for pedagogical bases from those qualities that characterise entrepreneurship.

If we look at the assumptions concerning the idea of human existence involved in entrepreneurial qualities, we can identify three basic elements: first a holistic attitude towards the world, second a holistic view of the human being and thirdly the human being as an extraordinary, risk-taking, creative, free and responsible actor. These three elements can be regarded as the principles guiding entrepreneurial learning i.e. the principles of entrepreneurial pedagogy.

HOW DO ENTREPRENEURIAL QUALITIES RELATE TO LEARNING? Education is society’s media for manifesting its ideas (i.e. Bowen 1981). Thus the learning theories adopted reflect society’s ideas about its success. Each learning theory involves society’s ideas of the world, human beings, the ideas of knowledge it values, how this knowledge is supposed to be acquired, and finally to what kind of action it is supposed to lead. In the science studying human behaviour, these levels are called ontological bases and epistemological bases, while further different learning theories are organised into paradigms, leading us to methodological bases for research and action; finally, there is action itself called methods. In learning, levels 3 and 4 involve pedagogy and level 5 didactics. We can think that we learn about entrepreneurship, as a separate discipline in science, when we refer to the substance of entrepreneurship. We can also refer to entrepreneurial learning, when we refer to the process involving those qualities manifested in the phenomenon of entrepreneurship. In this presentation it is suggested that these should be interactive. when we learn about entrepreneurship, we should use pedagogy manifesting entrepreneurial qualities. Therefore level 3 paradigms illustrate both paradigms of learning and paradigms of entrepreneurship. These levels are illustrated in Figure 2.

METHODS IN THE NETWORK PROJECT ONTOLOGY EPISTEMOLOGY PARADIGMS METHODOLOGY METHODS WORKING METHODS SUBJECT DIDACTICS

PROCESS

© Metodix 1998

Figure 2 The levels of learning theories If I compare the three entrepreneurial learning principles in these five levels to different learning paradigms, I meet some difficulties, I would say even paradoxes. The paradoxes are summarised level by level in Table 1.

Society’s ideas of learning are manifested in three paradigms; behaviourism, and the cognitive and constructive paradigms. Each of these has their time and place in history. Education, as the right of all citizens is a product of the modern transition. In the 17th and 18th centuries there was no formal education for ordinary people. For them education meant life-long learning by doing in the context into which they were born. The essential idea of the Enlightenment was to create an educational system for all, not only for those of noble birth. However, only in the 19th century were an educational system and theoretical bases for learning created. Before that there was no unified paradigm, rather different ideas and tensions. Not until the modern era does a consensus about learning theories seem to prevail i.e. behaviourism started to dominate learning theories.

Behaviourism - Empiricism and order in learning theories Behaviourism based on empiricism claims that sense impressions and observations are the criteria for truth and knowledge (e.g. Niiniluoto 1984, 140, Sarvimäki 1988, 16-19). The justification of knowledge in empiricism is provided by observations and deduced from themm e.g. Boed 1991, 5). This could be called Aristotelian truth. From the two different ideas of the modern transition, the modern era chose that of the British, not only in economics, but also in learning and education. As the idea of the human being as the product of his upbringing and evolution achieved dominance, the human being was categorised and classified. Following the ideas of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), the human being came to be regarded as an animal among other animals. Behaviourism recognised no difference between man and animal. The learner was regarded as an object, that can

Table 1 Entrepreneurial learning principles in different learning paradigms

TIME ONTOLOGICAL BASES

IDEA OF THE WORLD IDEA OF THE HUMAN BEING

EPISTEMOLOGICAL BASES IDEA OF KNOWLEDGE LEARNING PARADIGMS

Towards the end Postmodern of the Modern era transition 1970’s 20th century Platon – rationalism Still rationalism but with some questions From animal to a Challenges the cogmachine or a part of nitive paradigm and a system. Man as an its idea of the human information probeing. Human being ducer and processor is more complicated Women as equal and so is the enviworkforce but not ronment.Truth is also as valuable as man something person exWorld and nature is periences. World is constructed through polarised and World can be con- order and organiscomplex, not linear, trolled through rea- ing and it is conthere are different son based on obser- trolled by technoltruths. Woman as a ogy vations human being among other human beings Individual him/herKnowledge is based Knowledge is accomplished through self constructs on sense impresknowledge based on reasoning and sions and reached his/her past experimemorising. It is through observastill diversified and ences later also other tions. It increases linearly and is diver- delivered as pieces people are involved in this process (social isolated from sified. It is evaludimension) environment ated through quantitative measures Beginning of the Modern era 18th century Aristotle – empiricism Human being is an animal among other animals in hierarchical order 1. White man 2. His wife and family 3. Other races 4. Monkeys

Ý

BEHAVIOURISM

ß

METHODOLOGY/ PEDAGOGY WHERE AND HOW TO LEARN

METHODS/ DIDACTICS HOW TO ACT AND HOW TO TEACH

Ý

COGNITIVE PARADIGM

ß

Learning takes place inside a person first through memorising, then by giving much organised information Learning treated as changes in information structure The analogies to an edp machine or programme Teacher tells what to Teacher tells what do and how to do it, to know and what is teacher gives ques- right knowledge Teacher gives much tions and right anorganised knowlswers for them edge Learner is object of indoctrination and control Learning is a sum of reactions Take place in classrooms Can be studied in laboratories

Ý

CONSTRUCTIVISM, LATER SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM

ß

Postmodern era?

Pragmatism – world is made Holistic approach to world and the human being. Uniqueness as a universal feature in human being. He/ she is feeling entity and social actor with other human beings. He/she is an extraordinary, risktaking, creative, free and responsible actor. Truth changes according to action Knowledge is created through action and interaction with others Knowledge changes

Ý

EXPECTATION FOR A NEW EMERGING POSTMODERN OR ENTREPRENEURIAL PARADIGM

ß

Learning is individual and social phenomenon It is not dependent on place and time Individual her/himself is in centre of learning, deciding where and how to learn

Learning as a complex and diverse process dependent on action taking everywhere

Teacher supports learning and creates resources and contexts for that

People around and a person her/himself create possibilities for learning Person her/himself decides how to learn and how to act

be controlled. Learning could be seen as the sum of reactions – more reactions meant more learning. The knower in empiricism is an externally-observed object, whose world is restricted to the part of the world he can observe.

The cognitive paradigm – Rationalism and knowledge in learning theories During the modern era the ideas of organising and technical development also changed the idea of the human being. In the cognitive paradigm he was regarded as part of a machine or system (e.g. Bowen 1981, Fiske & Taylor 1984). This was followed by the notion that the world can be controlled and changed through order and technology. This was also applied to human beings and society (e.g. Etzioni 1968, Halsey & al. 1997, Morgan 1986, Zuboff 1988). As Etzioni (1968) expressed it “society produced individuals suitable for organisation”. The cognitive paradigm, following the ideas of rationalism, thinks that it is possible to accomplish true knowledge through intellectual intuition or reasoning. There exists an 'a priori' truth, which does not need empirical support (Niiniluoto 1984, Sarvimäki 1988). The knower in rationalism is a rational isolated thinker and in empiricism is an outside observed object, whose world is restricted to the part of the world he can observe. Whereas behaviourism thought that learning takes place outside the person, the cognitive idea placed it inside a person. Learning meant much memorising and later much information. The early cognitive ideas for their part regarded the learner as an information producer. Learning was seen as producing changes in the information structure. Analogies were sought either from edp-machines or programmes.

Constructivism – the human being and complexity into learning Now we have discovered that the world around us is changing and that the illusion of continuous, implied growth, ever-growing prosperity, full employment and the domination of the Western world, with its large companies and institutions, has not in fact produced welfare, a new discussion is about to begin. There is much similarity between this conversation and that in France during the transition from traditional to modern. Once again, as in the modern transition, we have turned our expectations toward entrepreneurship. This can also be seen in learning paradigms. In science, entrepreneurship has invaded organisation and learning theories. (Argyris & al. 1985, Minzberg & Quinn 1991, Morgan 1968, Näsi 1991). Its qualities can also be recognised in learning theories as an individual but also as a collective category.

In this transition from learning paradigms, the cognitive paradigm first gathered itself together and then found more complex forms. Efforts to reach a holistic approach can be identified in the formulations of humanistic ideas. This tradition, however, has not formed a separate paradigm. It has rather questioned the mechanistic ideas of the human being in other paradigms, and its contribution can be identified within their development. The

latest paradigm, constructivism, at the same time both follows and questions cognitivism. Its main point is that information is not transferred, but that the individual him/herself constructs information. He/she chooses and interprets information, assimilates and accommodates it, constructing new knowledge based on previous experiences. This learning process is always situational, tied up with the culture the learner lives in and with. (Von Wright & Von Wright 1998). The latest version also recognises that learning does not take place inside the individual but rather in interaction with other learners.

Now we can compare the ideas of learning with the qualities of entrepreneurship. In this comparison we meet some difficulties with the ideas about the relationship between the knower and what is supposed to be known (Mozer & Vander Nat 1987, 186-190), between the learner and what is supposed to be learnt, What the human being is and what kind world surrounds us.

Entrepreneurial qualities march into learning theories – the search for holistic ideas and creative methods

1. Holistic attitude towards the world Entrepreneurship has always involved the idea that the human being, looking around him and combining different elements, creates holistic realities, which have their consequences in action. Even when the environment is full of paradoxes and inconsistent events, the entrepreneur chooses those suitable for his ideas. He does not select his elements from a single environment; on the contrary, his ideas can spring upon him anywhere by combining different elements he creates something new. This means that the human being is an actor and the world is constructed through action. As can be noticed, none of the learning paradigms has taken this seriously. Only constructivism pays some attention to it, but it also categorises itself as a follower of the cognitive paradigm. I therefore suggest that we find the bases for knowledge and knowing in those philosophers who regard action as essential and the base for reality and knowledge i.e. the pragmatists. Pragmatism has not yet been identified as a base for learning; the pragmatists are, however, often quoted in the context of learning.

For pragmatists, knowledge is born and evaluated through and for action. What guide the action and evaluation are meanings and subjective interests. These are represented in the ideas of Charles S. Pierce (1839-1914), William James (1842-1910), John Dewey (1859-1952) and C.I. Lewis (1883-1964), early contributors to pragmatism (Dewey 1951, James 1913, Rorty 1986, Thayer 1968). The problem with these ideas in a holistic approach concerns other knowers. There are not many ideas about that. Dewey (1951) saw man as a living being in

interaction with the world. There is a confrontation with things in the interaction process. That is how meaning, emotions and interests are born. In this process, knowledge is created and tested by its consequences. In a holistic approach we must assume that interaction with the world concerns other human beings as well. Meanings are like culture, at the same time collective and individual. From this perspective knowing is also a social phenomenon. This means interaction with other people. Social constructivists have to a certain extent noticed this, and this is something we can take from them. In a changing reality we are facing the fact that what one is supposed to know and learn is changing, too2. In the diverse reality of the postmodern transition, these changing factors are numerous. How can we get a holistic view of this changing diversity? We have to choose the factors we are interested in. This means that we too are actors in this knowing and learning process and that our interests guide it.

How can we create a holistic attitude towards the world, when the actors’ subjective interests are involved and are guiding that process? We can get some ideas from Lyotard. He suggests that in the postmodern transition the nature and position of knowledge, especially of scientific knowledge, is changing. As a solution he offers narrative knowledge (Lyotard 1984). Diversified scientific knowledge has taken the place of narratives in the modern era. Whereas scientific knowledge tells us how things are, narratives tell us how to speak, how to listen and how to act. The criteria for a narrative lie in its competence to be presented. It is valid if it will be transmitted, that is, if it has some meaning for others. This is actually how entrepreneurs act. By perceiving how the world is approached today and in the near past, we can also identify the elements of narrative. When we met with an unpredictable environment, we started to simulate it. Instead of one explanation we needed a separate explanation for each situation and for each variable. Quantitative measurements also accreted qualitative descriptions as cases. Instead of theories, we got a tremendous number of models and cases. (Altman & al., 1985, Engel & al., 1979, Minzber & Quinn, 1991, Paliwoda, 1993, Timmons, 1994). These are small holistic pictures of the world. These are signals of the need to see around us realities, which we can understand and handle. These examples pursue the idea that the human being has a need to construct a holistic and integrated picture in order to be able to act. He does this consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally.

2 The modern times these ideas were accompanied by stability. What was supposed to be true and known was stable, as was too development toward it; both knower and known were regarded as stable. According to Niiniluoto (1984)"Truth and untruth are stable, characteristics independent of time... Pragmatists, however, consider truth as an acquired quality. According to Dewey, truth is something that is happening to an idea while verifying it. According to James, truth means ultimately the same as the process of verification."

When we apply this to learning, we quickly notice how narrow the idea of learning has been in the other paradigms. We thought that learning takes place at school, at an age before the start of one’s working life. Home, work, hobbies and learning were all separate environments (e.g. Hilgard & Bower, 1966). At school we got, and still do get, information from separate fields of knowledge. Now, however, we have started to question these restrictions (e.g. Engeström 1987, Leightwood & Steinbach 1994, Linturi 1999, Lonka & Jorma & Bryson 1996, Räsänen 1997, Saari 1998, Suojanen 1996). The ideas of an open learning environment and life-long learning have been launched. We have got the terms integration and mainstreaming in our curriculum. We have got learning models like problem solving (e.g. Leithwood & Steinbach 1994). Multiscientific approaches have started to be accorded some value in scientific discourse (e.g. Kyrö 1998, Kyrö & Suojanen 1999) . There is still, however, a lot of difficulty in realising what an open learning environment is. In some connections it has been called learning independent of time and space. This approach has often been connected to the virtual learning environment (e.g. Linturi 1999). Distant learning is another term connected with this. If it is connected only with these, we have a narrow realisation of the holistic approach. From entrepreneurship we can learn that when the environment changes the human being changes his/her reality as well. From these ideas we can turn to our second principle concerning the human being.

2. Second principle in entrepreneurial learning– a holistic human being Again there is not much to be got from the ideas of dominant paradigms. As the reader can notice, the human being has been isolated as an object or a mechanistic knower, or constructor or social constructor of knowledge. No signs of a feeling and acting entity or of human extraordinarity ca be found. Constructivists have, however, tried to reach extraordinarity by claiming that each individual is different, since he/she constructs knowledge according to his/her individual past. Of the pragmatists Dewey, for example, explicitly takes emotions for granted. For him meaning, emotions and interests are born in a confrontation with things in the interaction process. If we now turn to the newest ideas of learning, we can find that implicitly they are looking almost exactly like those qualities carried in our second principle of entrepreneurship. There are resemblances between many present ideas of learning and features of entrepreneurship. They are still, however, fragmented pieces of knowledge, which the features of entrepreneurship can bind together.

The holistic view of a human being has lately attracted much attention from various scientists. We have finally started to consider emotions as an integrated part of a human being. Even as recently as the 1980’s, feelings were very rare in scientific writings. For example, the Finnish researcher Jaana Venkula (1994) found, from 235 000

scientific articles and publications, only 50 mentions of feelings, and no mention at all of joy. The Finnish professor Eero Ropo (1996), who studies the postmodern paradigm, uses the term medias or channels to oneself. According to him, these are metacognitions, emotions, ethics and aesthetics. Learning for him is a constructive process between the self, key experiences, themes, the learning environment, knowledge and competence. We have started to enlarge our ideas of the human being from that of an object, a rational thinker and a decisionmaker towards a complex, holistic creator (e.g. Lonka & Bryson 1996, Räsänen,1997, Wohlgemüth 1991). To these ideas can also be added skills. Besides knowledge and feelings, skills have been found to be part of the human being as well (Friedman 1997, Seitamaa-Hakkarainen & Uotila 1997, Suojanen, 1996). In the present transition this has started to interest science, especially in the field of expertise research (Engeström 1987, Seitamaa-Hakkarainen & Uotila 1997). Sciences like crafts and home economics have also got their own scientific knowledge bases. Skills give us the possibility of thinking that perhaps acting is connected with the holistic human being as well. What makes these things important in this transition is that in the modern era we tried, in the name of democracy and equality, to find similarities in human beings so as to be able to treat them as an equal, homogenous group, which could be equally organised. In a changing environment we have started to realise that there is a similarity between us, but that this common denominator is the difference, the extraordinarity. These features taken together mean that each individual is a different entity and that his/her holistic attitude towards the world is different. Applied to learning this means that there is not just one way of learning, but rather a diversity of ways and different combinations. The lack of a holistic attitude and extraordinarity has also influenced the scientific discourse concerning entrepreneurship and education. It is questioned whether entrepreneurship is an art or a science, whether it can be taught or not (Rise 1996). Instead we should turn the question around, and ask what entrepreneurship can give to education, what we can learn about it.

THE HUMAN BEING AS AN EXTRAORDINARY, RISK-TAKING, CREATIVE, FREE AND RESPONSIBLE ACTOR. If we think of the creativeness involved in entrepreneurship we soon notice that creative methods of learning have not been involved with previous paradigms of learning, but that they have started to interest scientists (Engeström 1987, Friedman 1997, Ropo, 1996, Räsänen 1997, Suojanen 1996). In the transition this has a special meaning. We are used to thinking, comparing and legitimating our knowledge with the past, with what has been known before. (Lyotard, 1984) In stable conditions this means that, in the course of time, we can obtain more and better knowledge, which strengthens the behaviour we expect to achieve success. However, when circumstances change, this behaviour turns against us. For example, Lyotard suggests that we should be more interested in inventing new games and rules, instead of verifying our knowledge against the past. Lyotard’s

suggestion has actually received some support, since research into the future, futurology, has received some attention in the present transition. The essential feature in entrepreneurship has always been innovativeness. The most exciting dilemma is, how can we invent new things if we are supposed to justify our existence through the past. The tool for that in entrepreneurship has again been action. Instead of arguing, entrepreneurs have put knowledge into practice. If they have not succeeded they have been responsible for the consequences. This is called risk. Risk-taking has probably received least attention in learning theories so far. How to learn to fail. Failure and innovation are related to each other. If we want to create something new, risk is always present. In the modern era and even today, I believe, we are used to evaluate learning through success, which means something other than failure. If we can learn this from entrepreneurship, we have the tools to educate for survival and learning in transitions.

Finally we have the most difficult features of all to learn from entrepreneurship. What is, and what is meant by, a free actor? The simple idea that a person has the right to choose how to act and how to learn, how to earn her/his living and how to think, as a holistic phenomenon, is difficult. We rather tell and order, give instructions and make systems, than rely on a person’s ability to act: this is manifested in the dominant learning paradigms. We have started, however, to study this feature, for example, as self-supportive learning, with the term empowerment, etc. (Ahteenmäki-Pelkonen 1994, Varila 1990).

Now we have exposed the fact that the principles of entrepreneurship have not been valued in the dominant paradigms of the modern era. We have also noticed, however, that new ideas of learning are looking for those qualities entrepreneurship represents. In future we can hope that entrepreneurship can receive the latest results of education research and thus learn from there, but also vice versa. It requires an integrated co-operation with the science of education. With these ideas, I now turn to our newest environment and invention in information technology, and see how these principles of learning can be combined with that environment.

HOW ENTREPRENEURIAL LEARNING CAN BE APPLIED TO A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT –AN EXPERIMENT IN ACTION The virtual environment is a rather new phenomenon. It is connected with the development of the internet and refers to environments created in and within the internet . The Oxford Dictionary from 1992 already mentions virtual reality as simulation of the real world by computer.

The Internet society (Leiner & al. 1999) on its behalf defines the internet as “ a global network of networks enabling computers of all kinds to directly and transparently communicate and share services throughout much of the world… Internet also constitutes a shared global resource of information, knowledge, and means of collaboration, and cooperation among countless diverse communities.” Professor Griffiths (1999) describes the history of the internet in three phases starting in the 1960’s with the creation of ARPANET, from Arpanet to the Internet in the 1970’s and finally from the Internet to the World Wide Web in the 1990’s. He recognised that “the internet is an innovation (or rather a series of innovations) that enables communication and transmission of data between computers at different locations”. By December 1971, ARPANET linked 23 host computers to each other and went public in October 1972. Throughout this period, the world was still fairly chaotic, with a plethora of competing techniques and protocols. ARPANET was still the backbone of the entire system. When in 1982 it finally adopted the TCP/IP (transmission control protocol/internet protocol), the Internet was born. In 1984 the number of hosts topped 1000 for the first time. In 1985 it organised the first workshop, specifically targeting the private sector, to discuss the potentials (and current limitations) of TCP/IP protocols, beginning a dialogue between government/academic scientists and the private sector, and among private entrepreneurs themselves. In 1987 the first subscription-based commercial internet company, UUNET was founded. By 1989 the number of hosts surpassed 100,000 for the first time and a year later had climbed to 300,000. In 1990 ARPANET was wound up, and the first Internet search-engine for finding and retrieving computer files, Archie, was developed. Finally, in 199,1 the World Wide Web was released to the public. Twelve months later the number of hosts had doubled and the number of web-sites had climbed to 25,000. By the count, in 1998, the number of hosts stood at 36,8 million and the number of web-sites had reached 4,2 million.

The World Wide Web is a network of sites that can be searched and retrieved by a special protocol known as a Hypertext Transfer protocol (HTTP). Web is a name for the program. The program is freely available from an ftp site.

“The Web is an abstract (imaginary) space of information. On the Net, you find computers -- on the Web, you find documents, sounds, videos,… information. On the Net, the connections are cables between computers; on the Web, connections are hypertext links. The Web exists because of programs which communicate between computers on the Net. The Web could not be without the Net. The Web made the net useful because people are really interested in information (not to mention knowledge and wisdom!) and don't really want to have know

about computers and cables." (Griffihs 1999). In 1994 there were 3,2 million hosts and 3,000 web-sites. (Griffiths, Last Updated: 3-9-1999)

This development of the internet or the web has been an entrepreneurial process, combining resources in a novel way, creating something new. There have been no ready solutions, all the steps have involved risks of the unknown. Its development has been “acting as such though not so called or defined”, “being in practice though not in strictly or in name” as the term virtual is defined in the Penguin (Garmonsway & Simpson 1975) and Oxford Dictionaries (Thompson 1992). As a learning environment it fulfils the idea of learning through action, not only relating to those who use it, but also how it is developed. Knowledge has been created by action, and verified through action. A group of extraordinary human beings, not rational actors or knowers, has created this all. We must however realise that this virtual reality is shared only in rich countries, since over 20% of the rich countries had 90% of the internet-connections (in 1994 140 million and as an estimate for 2001 700 million internet connections, UNDP 1999)

When we look this development in the Finnish context, we should keep in mind that the population of Finland is only 5 million people. Even though investments in information technology from 1993 to 1996 have only increased by 28,5 % and there are many other countries well above Finland, both proportionally and in absolute figures, in 1998 we had almost 90 computers/1000 habitants connected to internet. This is more than in NewZealand, Norway, Iceland, USA, Australia, Sweden and so forth, not to mention Switzerland, which invested the largest amount/habitant in information technology between 1993-1996 (Facta 1998). The distribution between men and women as internet users seems to be similar in Finland as elsewhere. The survey of 1997 revealed that only 15% of users were women, and the most of the users are rather young (Järvinen 1997). This proportion has started however to balance. According to the latest gallup (Suomen Gallup 1999), 48% of internet users were women. There were however differences in usage. Women were more interested in www sites and chat channels, men in games and news. This could be interpreted as meaning that men were more technology and competitionoriented and women more interaction-oriented.

When we now compare the principles of a holistic approach to the world and human beings, we see that the world of virtual learning seems to belong to the few, i.e. the young, more to men than women, and to rich countries. This presents us with a challenge to increase the availability of the virtual environment globally, but also to develop technology and usability. When we compare education between men and women in Finland, we

get a picture of two extremes. Men dominate the field of engineering with almost 90%, while women on their behalf dominate such fields as health and medicine, the service trades, teacher training, commerce and the humanities (Kyrö 1999/2 and Statistics Finland 1998).

These figures in fact challenge us to develop a virtual environment that is easy to use and navigate, but also gives room for different kinds of learning, namely to the poor, old and to women. The very nature of the Internet with its synchronic and asynchronic qualities i.e. independence of time and place, already fulfils many such requirements that relate to an extraordinary human being (Neal 1999). The major problem, however, seems to be the extremely different qualifications needed to take advantage of these qualities. These problems relate to the behaviour and learning of human beings. From the perspective of entrepreneurial qualities we learned that a holistic approach toward the world is one of those. The problem is that holistic entities are different in different people.

Now we can return to our last question: how can entrepreneurial learning be applied to or carried out in a virtual environment? Since the whole environment has developed through action in an entrepreneurial way and the results seem to be quite effective, we thought that this is the method we will also apply in our experiments. It consists of the process of development with both sexes, different ages and different educational backgrounds and different expertise. Our experiment is called “Metodix”. The development project started in 1997. Metodix is a joint venture with researchers from nine Finnish universities. Pedagogical solutions are based on the abovedescribed postmodern or entrepreneurial learning paradigm. It is a virtual environment dedicated to scientific and applied research and methods. The aim of Metodix is to provide a comprehensive and authentic research and learning environment. It is a meeting point allowing interaction between scientists, method developers, research students and teachers. At the moment we have 183 registered pilot users at different educational levels (bachelor, master and doctoral) as a development team. In Metodix, knowledge and competence are constantly enriched in and by databases and discussions. It can be used regardless of time and place. As a learning environment it supports self-directed and social learning based on problem solving. The users can apply methodological knowledge instantly by using authentic method tools. The possibility of the creative application of methods is further enhanced and supported by practical examples. This also creates a complementary and a multiform element into method studies.

Technically Metodix is based on an Oracle database, on so-called interface programming and on tailor-made support software. The Metodix environment consists of five virtual environments that are connected to each other and that support each other, although they can also be used independently (www.metodix.com, see Figure 3).

Figure 3 The Virtual learning environment “Metodix” Each environment is planned to give holistic ideas and to serve different kind of learners. The contents provide the possibility of choosing knowledge and finding information from the standpoint of personal needs; one can combine different kinds of knowledge and interact with other knowers. 1. In the Team work environment a learner can search for co-operation groups according to his/her interest, introduce his/her research, join a group he/she is interested in and work with other groups. 2. In the method environment a learner can find research process related materials and method descriptions. The environment also offers help at the different stages of the research process: forming the research topic, scientific argumentation, philosophical bases of research, methodological choices, collecting the material, methods of analysis and drawing the conclusions. 3. On the personal desktop you can use methods and produce materials. You can also collect the information that deals with your own research project into this environment. 4. The Virtual library offers learners the actual material for learning rangin from 17th century manuscripts to the latest scientific articles. 5. The Reference library is the traditional way to find out what has been written, but it doesn’t give you the actual material.

This is the situation as we start our second cycle. The best reflection of our experiment is that Jyväskylä University has decided to present our project to the Ministry of Education for future development in the large national virtual university consortium. In future I hope we will be able to start building an international virtual campus specifically for the discipline of entrepreneurship. We could then combine entrepreneurial pedagogy with entrepreneurship studies.

CONLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This study has participated in the scientific discussion concerning entrepreneurship education – can entrepreneurship be learned or not. The presumption actually made was that it can. The argumentation for this was approached through three questions: What is entrepreneurship? How does it relate to learning? And finally how can this entrepreneurial learning be applied to or carried out ina virtual environment? The answer to the first question produced three principles of entrepreneurial pedagogy. When I compared them to the various different learning paradigms, I found however, that only in the present postmodern paradigm do those qualities seem to interest the science of education. It was also argued that these qualities are still fragmented and have not yet formed a holistic foundation for learning. It was therefore suggested that entrepreneurship could give something to learning theories as well as vice versa. It is not in fact any wonder that the question “can entrepreneurship be taught or not” has been posed, since with the theories that dominated in the modern era it would not have been possible. Only in the present postmodern transition have we found some tools for entrepreneurial learning. To demonstrate what kind of learning this is, I presented the development of a virtual environment, which has in fact been produced through entrepreneurial learning. Finally as an answer to the last question I presented an experiment conducted through entrepreneurial pedagogy. Thus this paper has not only answered the three questions as a scientific dilemma, but has also demonstrated how entrepreneurial learning can take place. This is the main point in entrepreneurial learning. It is not just concerned with what entrepreneurship is, but rather with how entrepreneurial behaviour can be produced. In the future I hope we can achieve entrepreneurship education in both research and practices.

REFERENCES Ahteenmäki-Pelkonen Leena, 1994: From self-directedness to interdependence? An analysis of Mezirow’s Conceptualization of self-directed learning. In: Social Change and adult education research. Adult education research in Nordic Countries 1992/93. Trondheim. Altman, Steven - Valenzi, Enzo - Hodgetts, Richard M., 1985: Organizational Behaviour: Theory and Practice. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando. Argyris, C. - Schön D., 1978: Organizational Learning: The Theory of Action Perspective. Massachusettes: Reading, Addison & Wesley.

Barreto, Humberto, 1989: The Entrepreneur in Microeconomic Theory. Disappearence and Explanation. London-New York. Routledge Bowen, James, 1981: A History of Western Education. Volume three. The modern West, Europe and the New World. Methuen & Co Ltd. London. Dahmen, Erik - Hannah, Leslie - Kirzner, Israel M., 1994: The Dynamics of Entrepreneurship. Crafoord Lectures 5. Institute of Economic Research. Lund University Press. Malmö. Dewey, J., 1951: Experience and Education.13th edition. New York: The MacMillan Company. Engel, James, F. - Warshaw, Martin R. - Kinnear, Thomas C., 1979: Promotional Strategy. Managing the Marketing Communications Process 4th ed. Richard D. Irwin, Inc.Homewood. Engeström, Yrjö, 1987: Learning by Expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to development reasearch. Orientakonsultit Oy. Helsinki. Etzioni Amitai, 1968: Nykyajan organisaatiot. Foorum Kirjasto. Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi. Helsinki. Fiet, James O., 1999: The Theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. October 1999. Published 2000. Fiet, James O., 1999: The Pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. October 1999. Published 2000. Fiske, Susan T. & Taylor, Shelley, E., 1984: Social Cognition. Random House. New York. Friedman, Ken, 1997: Design Science and Design Education. Research report B1 No 7/1997. Norwegian School of Management. Sandvika Griffiths, R.T., 1999: Internet for Historians, History of the Internet. The development of the Internet http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/ivh/frame_theorie.html, Last Updated: 3-9-1999 Haahti, Antti, Juhani, 1989: Entrepreneurs’ strategic orientation. Modelling Strategic Behaviour In small Industrial Owner-managed firms. The Helisnki School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki. Acta Academiae Oeconomicae Helsingiensis. Series A: 64 Halsey, A. H. & Lauder Hugh & Brown, Phillip & Wells Amy Stuart, ed. 1997: Education. Culture, Economy, and Society. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Hilgard, Ernest, R. -Bower, Gordon, H., 1966:Theories of learning 3. painos The Century Psychology Series New York. Johannisson, Bengt, 1984: A Cultural Perspective on Small Business - Local Business Climate. Småskrifter nr 23. Högskolan i Växjö. Centrum för Småföretagsutveckling.Sweden. James, William, 1913: Pragmatismi. Otava. Helsinki. Julkunen, Marja-Liisa, ed. 1997: Opetus, oppiminen, vuorovaikutus. WSOY. Juuti, Pauli & Soikkanen, Antti, 1994: Change to new organizational cultures. Paradigmatic Change. FEMDI. In: Action Research in Finland. Active Society with Action Research 25-27 August 1993. Helsinki. Labour Policy Studies 82. Ministry of Labour. Järvinen, Petteri, 1997: Internet käyttäjäselvitys 1997. www.pjoy.fi./tutkimus/kt97/johdanto.htm 13.12.1997 Kanter, Rosabeth, Moss, 1989: When giants learn to dance. Mastering the challenges of strategy, management and careers in the 1990s.Simon and Schuster. New York. Kauppi A. & Kontiainen S. & Nurmi K.E & Tuomisto &Vaherva T. ed. 1994:Adult Learning in a Cultural Context Adult Education Research Society in Finland. University of Helsinki, Lahti Research and Training Centre. Keuning, Doede & Opheij, Wilfrid, 1994: Delayering Organizations. How to beat bureaucracy and create a flexible and responsive organization. Pitman Publishing. London Kovalainen, Anne, 1993: At The Margins of The Economy. Women’s self-employment in Finland 1960-1990. Publications of The Turku School of Economics and Business Administration. Series A 9:1993 Kyrö, Paula, 1996: The Points of Transition in Reforming the Understanding and Meaning of Entrepreneurship. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal. Volume 2, Number 1, p. 71-94. USA Kyrö, Paula, 1998: Yrittäjyyden tarinaa kertomassa. WSOY. Helsinki. Kyrö, Paula, 1999: EntrepreneurshipWomen and equality in Finnish Business life. Jyväskylä University. School of Business and Economics. Working paper N:o 204/1999. Kyrö, Paula, 1999/2: Entrepreneurship and education search for each other in the postmodern transition, p. 6998. In Tosse, Sigvart & Falkencrone, Pia & Puurula, Arja & Bergstedt, Bosse, 1999: Challenges and development. Adult education research in Nordic Countires. Tapir Academic Press. Trondheim. Kyrö, Paula & Suojanen, Ulla, 1999: The Relationship Between Sustainable Development and Entrepreneurship in the Postmodern Transition. International Journal Of Antrepreneurship. Volume 3.1999 Leiner, Barry, M. & Cerf, Vinton, G. & Clark, David, D. & Kahn Robert, E. & Kleinrock Leonard & Lynch, Daniel, C. & Postel, Jon & Roberts, Larry, G. & Wolff, Stephen, 1999: A Brief History of The Internet. www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.html. 28.12.1999 Leithwood, Kenneth & Steinbach, Rosanne, 1994: Improving the problem-solving expertise of School Administrators: Theory and Practice. In: Ruohotie, Pekka & Grimmett, Peter P., (ed.) 1994b: New themes for education in a changing world. University of Tampere and Simon Fraser University. Tampere. 219-252 Linturi, Hannu, 1999:Educational polyphony and dialoque in information society- Futu-Themis project. Internetix http://www.internetix.fi/tutkimus/internetix-tutkimus/futu/ppframe.htm. 30.6.1999

Lonka, K & Joram, E & Bryson, M, 1996: Conceptions of learning and knowledge – does training make a difference ? Contemporary Educationa Psychology, 21, 240-260 Lovio, Raimo, 1993: Evolution of Firm Communities in New Industries The Case of the Finnish Electronics Industry. Acta Academiae Oeconomicae Helsingiensis Series A:92. Helsinki. Lyotard J. F., 1984: The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. University of Manchester Press. Manchester. Metodix, 2000: www.metodix.com. last up-dated 31.1.2000 Minzberg Henry - Quinn James, 1991: The Strategy Process: concepts, contexts, cases. Prentice-Hall, International Inc. USA Morgan, Gareth, 1986: Images of Organization. Sage Publications Beverly Hills. Mozer P. K - Vander Nat A., 1987: Human Knowledge, Classical and contemporary approaches. Oxford University Press. USA Neil, lisa, 1999: Virtual Calssrooms and communities. www.lucent.com/cedl/group97.html. 21.12.1999 Niiniluoto, I., 1984: Johdatus tieteen filosofiaan. Käsitteen ja teorianmuodostus. Helsinki: Otava. Näsi, J., 1991: Strategic Thinking as Doctrine: Development of Focus Areas and New Insights. In the publication: Arenas of Strategic Thinking, ed. by Näsi, J., p. 26-66. Helsinki: Foundation for Economic Education. Paliwoda, Stanley, 1993: International marketing. Second edition. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Oxford. Peters, T.J. & Waterman R.H Jr, 1982: In search for excellence. New York: Harper & Row. Petrin, Tea, 1991: Entrepreneurship and its development in public enterprises. p. 15-20 in: Entrepreneurship development in public enterprises, 1991: ed. by Prokopenko, Joseph - Pavlin, Igor. International Labour office Geneva. Management Development Series No. 29. International Centre for Public Enterprises in Developing Countries, Ljubljana Rise, 1996: Research on Innovative Strategies and Entrepreneurship June 11-13 Jyväskylä. Conference proceedings Ropo, Eero, 1996: Toimiva oppimisympäristö. Opetushallistuksen Opinnet-päivät. Syyskuu 1996. Järvenpää. Rorty, R., 1986: Consequences of Pragmatism (Esseys: 1972-1980) 3. edition University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA Ruohotie, Pekka & Grimmett, Peter P., (ed.) 1994: New themes for education in a changing world. University of Tampere and Simon Fraser University. Tampere. Räsänen, Marjo, 1997: Building Bridges. Experiental art understanding. A work of art as a means of understanding and constructing self. Univeristy of Art and Design. Helsinki Saari, Timo, 1998: Knowledge creation as the production of individual autonomy. How news influences subjective reality. Institute for multicultural communication and modern learning. Reports from the department of teacher education in Tampere University. A15/1998. Tampere. Sarvimäki, A., 1988: Knowledge in Interactive Practice Disciplines: An analysis of knowledge in education and health care. Department of Education University of Helsinki. research Bulletin 68, Helsinki Schein, E. H., 1985: Organisational Culture and Leadership. A Dynamic View. Second Printing. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Pirita & Uotila, Minna, ed. 1997: Produkt, fenomen, upplevelse. Proceedings of a Nordic symposium. Helsinki, November 7-9.1996. Nordic Forum for Research and Development in Craft and Design. Research in Sloyd Education and Crafts Science B no. 3 1997 Helsinki. Statistics Finland, 1998: Enterprises in Finland 1996. 1998:25. Helsinki Sugarman, Leonie, 1993: Life span Development: Concepts, Theories and Interventions. England. Suojanen, Ulla, 1996: Entrepreneurial aspects in Craft Education. Paper presented at the Second International Symposium of Handicraft Teaching. Towards a creative teaching and learning. Vinalas Valley. Pinar del Rio, Cuba. November 18-23. Suojanen, Ulla, 2000: Action theory. www.metodix.com. Suomen Gallup, 1999: www.gallubweb.com, 24.12.1999 Thayer, H.S., 1968: Meaning and Action. A Critical History of Pragmatism. The Bobbs-Merrill Company. The City College of the City University of New York. USA Timmons, Jeffrey A., 1994: New Venture Creation. Entrepreneurship for the 21st centure. 4th edition. Irwin. Illinois UNDP, 1999: Human development report. Oxford Unversity Press. New York. Weber, M, 1969: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. First paperback 1947. Sixth printing. Edited with an Introduction by T. Parsons. New York: A Free Press Paperback Collier-MacMillan Ltd. Venkula, Jaana, 1994: Tiedon suhde toimintaan. Yliopistopaino. Helsinki. Wohlgemuth, André C.,1991: Das Beratungskonzept der Organisationsentwicklung; Neue Form der Unternehmungsberatung auf Grundlage des sozio-technishen Systemanstzes, 3. Auflage, Verlag Paul Haupt, Switzerland Von Wright, Maija-Liisa & Von Wright Johan, 1998: Oppiminen ja koulutus. WSOY. Helsinki Zuboff, S., 1988: In The Age of The Smart Machine. The future of Work and Power. New York.