The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

ET VIEWPOINT
48,8/9
Researching entrepreneurship
and education
704
Part 2: what is entrepreneurship education and
does it matter?
Harry Matlay
UCE Business School, Birmingham, UK

Abstract
Purpose – This paper is the second in a series of conceptual, contextual and empirical contributions
that, individually and cumulatively, seek to analyse, develop and link two important fields of research:
“entrepreneurship” and “entrepreneurship education”. Part 2 aims to provide a critical evaluation of
entrepreneurship education and its impact upon graduate entrepreneurship in the UK.
Design/methodology/approach – A comprehensive literature review and a structured evaluation
of current knowledge on topics related directly and indirectly to “entrepreneurship education” in the
UK.
Findings – It appears that conceptual, contextual, design and delivery differences can have a
considerable influence upon entrepreneurship education courses delivered in the UK. There are
significant definitional as well as conceptual and contextual issues affecting the design of relevant
programmes and the delivery of the chosen curriculum. Consequently, a number of actual and
perceived barriers need to be overcome in order to facilitate a better understanding of stakeholder
needs and learning patterns.
Research limitations/implications – The evaluation and interpretation of relevant research
results represent the author’s own perception and experiences, and should therefore be viewed with
caution. It is suggested that the content of this paper is subject to the usual bias and singular
perspective generally attributable to “viewpoint” articles.
Practical implications – The paper measures the outcomes of entrepreneurship education is still
proving difficult and inconclusive. More in-depth research is needed on current UK entrepreneurship
education provision and initiatives in order to gain a better understanding of the scope and limitations
of a wide range of entrepreneurship education programmes.
Originality/value – This paper provides a critical evaluation of entrepreneurship education in
the UK.
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Education, United Kingdom

Education þ Training
Vol. 48 No. 8/9, 2006
pp. 704-718
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912
DOI 10.1108/00400910610710119
Introduction
In recent years, it has become fashionable to view entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurship education as the panacea for stagnating or declining economic
activity in both developed and developing countries (Matlay, 2001). Similarly, in
economies in transition, entrepreneurial education has become an integral part of the
new curriculum on offer in both private and state sponsored business schools (Li and
Matlay, 2005). Interestingly, entrepreneurship education is also promoted as an
effective way to facilitate the transition of a growing graduate population from
education and into work (Matlay and Westhead, 2005). For these and a range of other Research
socio-economic and politically expedient reasons, entrepreneurship education has entrepreneurship
nudged itself to the top of the political agenda and it is currently a high priority item of
policy throughout the industrially developed and developing world (Mitra and Matlay, and education
2004). Although progress in entrepreneurship research has been impressive, existing
theoretical frameworks tend to provide only a limited explanation of the complexities
inherent in the entrepreneurial process (Matlay, 2006a). To further complicate 705
conceptual and contextual difficulties, most researchers tend to focus narrowly on
segmented aspects of the entrepreneurial process (Shane, 2003). Ongoing research in
entrepreneurship education also suffers from a range of conceptual and contextual
problems, thus limiting the significance, applicability and generalisation value of the
growing body of knowledge on this topic (Matlay, 2006b).
Interestingly, much of the relevant research on entrepreneurship appears to take
place in Business Schools (Alvarez, 1996). Similarly, a large proportion of related
entrepreneurship education at university level is offered in business schools. As Shane
(2003, p. 1) points out:
. . . the level of interest in entrepreneurship among business school students is also extremely
high . . . every university campus, it seems, has a wealth of courses about how to start and
finance new business.
Despite such widespread acknowledgement of supply and demand, there exist a
disparity in the content and quality of entrepreneurship education programmes on
offer, including curricula design, delivery methods and forms of assessment. To
complicate matters, the UK higher education (HE) system has expanded dramatically
over the last two decades (Johnson, 2002). In contrast, however, the traditional graduate
job market in this country is in long-term decline, mainly due to the downsizing and
restructuring strategies of large organizations and multinationals (Westhead and
Matlay, 2004).
This article provides a critical evaluation of entrepreneurship education in the UK.
The first section contains a concise review of the specialist literature on
entrepreneurship education. The second section evaluates existing entrepreneurship
education programmes and initiatives on offer in UK HEIs. The final section outlines
conclusions and relevant policy recommendations.

Entrepreneurship education: conceptual and contextual Issues

Conceptual and contextual convergence is of paramount importance to the ongoing
debate of whether entrepreneurs are born or made (Henry et al., 2004) and to issues
surrounding entrepreneurship education and its impact upon entrepreneurial activities
(Matlay, 2005). It is generally agreed that entrepreneurs can be subjected to both
“push” and “pull” influences which will determine and shape their chosen
entrepreneurial paths (Matlay and Storey, 2003). According to Kuratko (2003, p. 11):
. . . it is becoming clear that entrepreneurship, or certain facets of it, can be taught. . . business
educators and professionals have evolved beyond the myth that entrepreneurs are born, not
made.
In the UK context, Hannon (2006, p. 297) argues that:
ET . . . entrepreneurship education is now part of the HE landscape . . . of a broader aim to embed
the notions of enterprise and entrepreneurship throughout the education system from
48,8/9 primary, secondary and through tertiary levels.
It is often stated that evaluating the performance and relevance of entrepreneurship
education programmes is a difficult and highly subjective task (McMullan and Gillin,
2001). There are various reasons for this common assertion. In particular,
706 conceptualising and contextualising entrepreneurship education is confounded by
many intervening variables. According to Gartner and Vesper (1994) the number and
variety of entrepreneurship programmes has expanded considerably during the past
two decades, both in Europe and elsewhere. The diversity and heterogeneity of the
sector is matched by the growing rhetoric that complements the tremendous growth in
entrepreneurship education offerings across primary, secondary and university levels
(Solomon et al., 2002). In the US, the enormous expansion of entrepreneurship courses
has been fuelled by student and accreditation bodies’ dissatisfaction with general
business education (Solomon and Fernald, 1991). Similar reasons are underlying the
expansion of entrepreneurship education in Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand,
Canada and other parts of the world (Houston and Mulholland, 2003; Bell et al., 2002).
Curran and Stanworth (1989) argue that business educators tend to promote
entrepreneurship education at undergraduate level on the main assumption that
increasing the cohort of students holding relevant theoretical knowledge will
invariably lead to a similar growth in the number of nascent entrepreneurs. Although
the number of entrepreneurship education programmes offered by HEIs in the UK has
grown considerably over the past two decades, the actual contribution that such
courses have on entrepreneurial activity remains unclear (Matlay, 2006b).
Furthermore, it appears that entrepreneurship educators are still uncertain about the
impact and effectiveness of entrepreneurship education as a whole, but are unwilling to
depart from perceived “good practice”. Thus, it is argued that:
. . . much of the entrepreneurship research to date has not provided empirical support for the
claim that completion of formal courses in entrepreneurship and small business management
increases the likelihood that an individual will start a business (Cox et al., 2002, p. 230).
This is partly due to inherent design problems and inadequate outcome measures used
to gauge student satisfaction, their attitudes towards course content and/or individual
performance in entrepreneurship programmes (Block and Stumpf, 1992). According to
Gorman et al.(1997) most of the empirical studies in this field tend to focus on samples
of respondents with an existing predisposition towards entrepreneurship. Thus, by not
employing a control group of students without relevant education or predisposition,
these researchers biased results in favour of entrepreneurship education (Matlay,
2006a).
In spite of prevailing “cause and effect” uncertainties and related research
difficulties, the rise in the popularity of entrepreneurship education in HEIs has
contributed to the emergence and development of a specialised curriculum. Wide
variations in course design, content and delivery fuelled a heated debate among
entrepreneurship educators in relation to course appropriateness and effectiveness. In
this context, Charney and Libecap (2003, p. 386) point out that:
. . . approaches to entrepreneurship education have varied across colleges and universities
from offering single courses in new business development or business plans preparation to
 integrated curricula that include marketing, finance, competitive analysis and business plan Research
development.
entrepreneurship
Due to the passage of time and interceding events, the causal link between and education
entrepreneurship education and new venture formation is difficult to establish and
analyse, in particular when quantitative “snapshot” research methods are used (Cox
et al., 2002). Arguably, longitudinal research involving the analyses of time series could
prove more suitable for the study of the impact that entrepreneurship education can 707
have on graduates in general and nascent entrepreneurs in particular. Unfortunately,
such studies are both expensive and time consuming. In the meantime policy makers
are left to question the validity and efficiency of a large number of entrepreneurship
education courses as well as the viability of allocating further funding to this
specialised sub-sector of higher education.
An analysis of a number of studies on entrepreneurship courses offered in business
schools across the world has established that most of them use a combination of
theoretical and conceptual approaches, often reinforced by detailed analysis of
“practical” or “real life” solutions, including case and field studies (Timmons, 2003).
According to Honig (2004) teaching the practicalities and monitoring the production of
a “business plan” is one of the more popular curricula formats. He found that 78 of the
top 100 universities in the US considered the development of a business plan as the
most important feature of their provision in the area of entrepreneurship or small
business management (Honig, 2004, p. 258). In their analysis of possible differences
between “entrepreneurship” and “small business management” courses, Winslow et al.
(1999) highlighted both similarities and differences between the two types of provision.
For instance, both types tended to focus on the “enterprise” as an economically feasible
and profitable unit. Similarly, both were aimed at a common customer base (i.e. nascent
entrepreneurs, small business owner/managers, students and the unemployed) and
provided theoretical and practical coverage of issues relating to planning,
implementing and operating small-scale enterprises. In their seminal article,
Winslow et al. (1999, p. 3) concluded that, in general:
. . . the conceptual difference is often blurred, in both the academic and real worlds.
A radical dichotomy might place small business management provision in the context
of “normal” sales, profits and growth, while entrepreneurship courses tend to
emphasize the possibility and desirability of rapid growth, high profits and above
“average” capital gains or returns on investments (Matlay, 2006b).

Entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs

Arguably, much of the economic growth experienced by both developed and
developing countries can be attributed to new businesses created and managed by
nascent entrepreneurs (Reynolds, 1994; Davidsson et al. 1994; Mitra and Matlay, 2004).
The concept of nascent entrepreneurship can, however, vary considerably according to
the context in which it is considered (Lazear, 2002). According to Reynolds and White
(1992) “nascent entrepreneurs” are those individuals who undertake activities
connected with new firm formation, start-up and management. The related business
processes can, and usually are, labelled as “nascent entrepreneurship”. Interestingly,
Wagner (2003) describes nascent entrepreneurs as those individuals who are
considering or are de facto about to start a career as self-employed. In his view, nascent
ET entrepreneurs must be ready and willing to move from employee to self-employed
48,8/9 status. Thus, it can be argued that traditionally, nascent entrepreneurship is equated
with the beginning of the entrepreneurial process, which will eventually lead to the
formation of new and dynamic small businesses (Wagner, 2004). According to Delmar
and Davidsson (2000) there are considerable gaps in “nascent entrepreneurship
knowledge”, in particular to the learning processes that lead to the creation and
708 development of new entrepreneurial businesses. This is not surprising as
entrepreneurship research is fragmented and biased towards more general
sub-topics such as management, strategy and marketing (Shane, 2003). Issues
relating to vocational education and training or human resource development are
generally marginalised or ignored altogether (Matlay, 2000, 2002).
Conceptual and contextual difficulties encountered in the study of nascent
entrepreneurs can also be relevant to the emerging field of entrepreneurship
education research. For instance, most of the previous research in this area has
been conducted retrospectively and involves samples of successful or economically
active nascent entrepreneurs. As a result, there is a notable paucity of research
that relates to failed nascent entrepreneurs or to those who had abandoned their
efforts of setting up a new business (Matlay, 2000). There is a paucity of research
on pertinent aspects of entrepreneurship education research, including regional
variations, cross country comparisons or the clustering tendencies of nascent
entrepreneurs. Thus, existing research only allows for limited or county specific
generalisation and lacks the scope for wider relevance (see Keeble and Walker,
1994). Much of this research relies upon quantitative “snap shot” surveys, which
can involve biased samples and methodologies. Furthermore, asking similar
questions from comparable samples of respondents often results in mutually
supporting and reinforcing outcomes (Matlay, 1997). Specifically, in-depth
longitudinal qualitative research on graduate nascent entrepreneurs is notably
absent from the specialist body of knowledge (Matlay, 2002).
An early advocate of entrepreneurship education, Knight (1960) suggested that
some aspects of vocational courses would be beneficial to nascent entrepreneurs. He
persisted in his belief that entrepreneurship education provided by business schools
could have a significant impact upon both the number and the quality of graduate
entrepreneurs entering an economy (Knight, 1987). Other researchers were equally
confident in their evaluation of the impact that entrepreneurship education would have
on the stock of graduate entrepreneurs. In this context, Reynolds (1997) found that
education in general and entrepreneurship education in particular impacted positively
upon individual predilection for self-employment. According to Bates (1995),
entrepreneurs with higher educational attainments tended to do better, and their
firms survived longer, than their counterparts who lacked formal education and
training. Having reviewed the existing evidence, Delmar and Davidsson (2000, p. 5)
concluded that:
. . . education probably has a positive impact on self-employment, at least in some
[knowledge-intensive] industries.
This resonates with the “enterprise culture” movement in the UK, which links
entrepreneurship to the knowledge based economy and sustainable competitive
advantage (DTI, 2001; Peters, 2001).
 A detailed analysis of definitions, samples and methodologies used in recent Research
entrepreneurship education research questions the validity, comparability and entrepreneurship
generalisation potential of results and hypotheses presented in the specialist
literature (Matlay, 2002). A critical review of the UK, European and international and education
literature on entrepreneurship education, training and learning has identified only a
small number of empirically rigorous publications that consider the position of
graduates as nascent entrepreneurs. Most research originates in the US and focuses 709
upon graduate entrepreneurship in the context of a mature and stable economy.
McCarthy et al. (1997) mapped ongoing entrepreneurial education programmes on a
“product life cycle” curve and argued that relevant academic courses in the US have
finally made the transition through introduction and growth stages to early stages of
maturity. Similarly, Vesper and Gartner (1996) plot the rise in provision, from one
college offering one course in 1945 to 16 business schools with relevant programmes in
1970. By 1995, there were in excess of 400 universities offering entrepreneurship
education to their students. Interestingly, all of these universities claimed to provide
“advanced entrepreneurship education”, including guidance on writing business plans,
obtaining start-up capital and developing the managerial skills of nascent
entrepreneurs. As a result, Leonhardt (1996) argued that most business school
graduates who benefited from entrepreneurship education were prepared to either start
their own small businesses or to become valuable employees in large organisations or
multinational corporations.
It is also claimed that graduates who chose entrepreneurship education as part of
their curriculum tend to have a higher propensity to engage in entrepreneurship
activities (Brown, 1990; Vesper and Gartner, 1996). Furthermore, Callan and Warshaw
(1995) argued that the likelihood of graduates embarking upon successful business
creation increases further with their attendance of relevant MBA programmes. As
most of these only admit students with prior work experience, the apparent increase in
success could be explained by this and similar factors (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994;
Stuart and Abetti, 1990). Universities often provide a range of entrepreneurship
education courses that outline, discuss and reinforce critical issues and solutions
related to business venture creation, covering both pre- and post- start-up phases
(Matlay, 2002). Similarly, graduates with relevant business experience could have
acquired a relevant knowledge base and contextual advantage and therefore would
benefit considerably from this type of provision (Taylor and Banks, 1992).
Unfortunately, however:
. . . students, lacking relevant experience in which to place this knowledge and lacking the
context of immediacy surrounding the issue, are likely to dismiss dealing with such problems
as common sense or irrelevant (McCarthy et al., 1997, p. 2).
In contrast to the usual HEI claims regarding their graduates’ success at setting up
profitable new businesses, there is scant evidence that entrepreneurship education
courses prepared any of them for successfully managing or growing their post start-up
firms.
Following a growing interest in entrepreneurship education in recent years, there
have been concerted attempts to explore UK graduates’ motivation, perceptions and
awareness of entrepreneurship as a career path or as a realistic alternative to paid
employment (Westhead and Matlay, 2006). The results of these studies, however,
ET proved either inconclusive or contradictory in their findings and recommendations
48,8/9 (Matlay, 2002). As Henry et al. (2004, p. 250) note:
. . . even though much evidence has been accumulated about how the small business sector
operates, there are still significant areas that have not been subject to the same level of debate
and analysis . . . one of these areas concerns education and training for new business creation
that comprises a number of problematic issues.
710
The Stirling University study of graduate entrepreneurship career aspirations and
destinations provides a more consistent perspective on business school graduates as
nascent entrepreneurs (Cannon et al., 1988; Rosa and McAlpine, 1991; Rosa, 1993, 1994).
Comprising of a main (1988) study of 5,375 students from ten universities in England
and Scotland and a number of smaller, supplementary surveys, this research provides
useful insights, comparisons and trends relating to nascent graduate entrepreneurship
(Rosa, 2003). The results show that 9.7 percent of graduates in the combined research
sample became entrepreneurs within five years of leaving university. According to
Rosa (2003, p. 441) this represents:
. . . a remarkably high figure when we consider the range of career options open to students in
employment and the fact that UK students tend to be very employee oriented in their career
aspirations.
Rosa (2003) also acknowledges that about one fifth of graduates had “entrepreneurial
experience” before joining the universities in the UK sample. Entrepreneurial
experience gained prior to undertaking entrepreneurship education tends to improve
the later performance of these nascent entrepreneurs (Simon et al., 2000; Westhead et al.,
2005). Importantly, however, it appears that about half of the graduate entrepreneurs in
the sample were still trading five years later. In the context of entrepreneurial failure,
the survival rate amongst these graduate entrepreneurs is considerably higher than the
national UK average and by inference, much better than businesses run by
non-graduates (see, Storey, 1994). Sole trading was the preferred entrepreneurial outlet
and a high proportion (78 percent) of these graduate entrepreneurs were involved full
time in the management of their businesses. Over the same period of time, the graduate
entrepreneurs in the sample appear to outperform the national average of similarly
sized businesses (see, for example, Daly, 1991; CSBRC, 1992).
Rosa (2003, p. 451), while acknowledging that graduate entrepreneurs in the sample
were more enterprising and performed better than the national profile of self-employed
and small business owner/managers, found that they lagged considerably behind the
UK VAT registered businesses. Typically, however, these firms were either sole
traders or micro-businesses that depended on the knowledge and skills of the
entrepreneur. Like most newly created small ventures, the firms in the sample were
likely to have operated below the VAT registration threshold. Even the larger of these
new ventures were mostly professional practices or family businesses and unlikely to
be growth oriented. The sample of new ventures initiated by these graduate
entrepreneurs exhibited a remarkably high correlation between the main topic of study
and the type of business. Most of these new ventures focussed upon designer and
business support and not science degree topics, biotechnology or computer software
design. It is important to realise that the findings of these interrelated surveys only
provide a broad benchmark for this rapidly expanding topic of research.
 In my view, there is a great deal of scope for further research in entrepreneurship Research
education and related topics. In this topic, it is relatively easy to ask pertinent entrepreneurship
questions and much more difficult to find relevant answers (see Matlay, 2006a). I would
suggest that future research should include empirically rigorous quantitative, and education
qualitative and longitudinal studies. Considerable public resources have been invested
in this area of policy making and the outcomes are yet to be properly investigated in
terms of the number and quality of graduate entrepreneurs entering and the UK 711
economy. Official rhetoric and anecdotal evidence is neither useful nor convincing and
it befalls us – the academic community – to undertake and disseminate relevant
research that will influence, direct and validate the size and choice of long-term
investment in entrepreneurship education at all levels of the UK educational system. In
relative terms, we appear to be doing a great deal to promote entrepreneurship
education in this country. The main question, however, remains unanswered: are we
doing enough, in absolute terms, to ensure sustainable competitive advantage at
national and international levels? If the recent past has taught us much about national
competitiveness, than the next few years will no doubt provide us with pertinent
answers, clear directions and a relevant research agenda . . .

Concluding remarks
There is growing consensus amongst policy makers and other important stakeholders
that entrepreneurship education can increase both the quality and the quantity of
graduate entrepreneurs entering the UK economy. The main premise of this
convergence of opinion rests upon the assumption that the entrepreneurship education
curriculum taught in HEIs can positively influence graduate attitudes towards
entrepreneurship and equip nascent entrepreneurs with the necessary knowledge and
skills to start up, manage and develop economically viable businesses. Consecutive UK
governments have made concerted efforts to support the development of university
graduates and increase the numbers of better-educated entrepreneurs. In recent years,
a number of radical changes have been forced upon the HE sector and a variety of
support initiatives were introduced in order to increase and widen partnerships
between HEIs and industry. Most of these initiatives included a specific
entrepreneurship agenda that sought to enhance entrepreneurial motivation and
business competency amongst the expanding cohort of new graduates. Ongoing
research on graduate entrepreneurship in the UK tends to be encouraging, even though
a sizeable proportion of students persist in their choice of traditional careers in large
organisations or multinational corporations.
An analysis of the specialist literature on entrepreneurship education and its impact
upon graduate nascent entrepreneurship has highlighted a number of definitional,
conceptual and contextual difficulties that cast doubt upon the validity, comparability
and generalisation potential of emerging results. It is argued here that the existing
body of knowledge has only limited value, as it reflects mainly isolated and biased
research practices. Contradictory results that emerge from methodologically deficient
research can both confuse and mislead policy efforts in this area of government
intervention. Similarly, it can negatively affect academic credibility in the eyes of
policy makers and their representatives.
There exists a paucity of conclusive and empirically rigorous research to link
entrepreneurship education in the UK to a significant and sustainable increase in
ET nascent graduate entrepreneurs. It appears that the propensity of graduates to become
48,8/9 nascent entrepreneurs is influenced by prevailing socio-economic and educational
conditions that are specific to the UK and its position in the global economy.
Conceptual, contextual, design and delivery differences can have considerable
influences upon entrepreneurship education courses delivered in UK HEIs.
Furthermore, a number of personal, family and peer influences often affect a
712 graduate’s career aspirations, entrepreneurial motivation or nascent potential. Thus, a
number of actual and perceived barriers need to be overcome or mitigated in order to
facilitate a better understanding of stakeholder needs, contributions and learning
patterns.
There is an urgent need for empirically rigorous research to bridge the knowledge
gap that persists between the interests of various stakeholders in this area of policy
intervention and actual entrepreneurial outcomes. Such research would offer a realistic
benchmark against which stakeholders could evaluate progress in entrepreneurship
education and nascent entrepreneurship at all levels of economic activity. It could also
provide a transparent and realistic measure of ongoing public investment as well as an
expedient response base in a rapidly changing global environment.

References
Alvarez, J.L. (1996), “The role of business ideas in the promotion of unemployment: the case of
entrepreneurship in the 1980s”, in Gual, J. (Ed.), The Social Challenge of the Creation of
Employment in Europe, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Bates, T. (1995), “Self-employment entry across industry groups”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 143-56.
Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P. and Tran, T. (2002), Universities on Line: A Survey of Online
Education and Services in Australia, March, Occasional Paper Series 02-A, Higher
Education Group.
Block, Z. and Stumpf, S.A. (1992), “Entrepreneurship education research: experience and
challenge”, in Sexton, D.L. and Kasarda, J.D. (Eds), The State of the Art of
Entrepreneurship, PWS Kent Publishing, Boston, MA, pp. 17-42.
Brown, R. (1990), “Encouraging enterprise: Britain’s Graduate Enterprise Programme”, Journal
of Small Business Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 71-7.
Cannon, T., Harvey, K. and Rosa, P. (1988), The Impact of an Enterprise Initiative on the Career
Aspirations of Graduates in Scotland’s Central Institutions, University of Stirling, Stirling,
SEF Working Papers.
Charney, A.H. and Libecap, G.D. (2003), “The contribution of entrepreneurship education: an
analysis of the Berger Program”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 385-418.
Cox, L.W., Mueller, S.L. and Moss, S.E. (2002), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on
entrepreneurial self-efficacy”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 229-45.
CSBRC (1992), The State of British Enterprise, Cambridge Small Business Centre, University of
Cambridge, Cambridge.
Callan, K. and Warshaw, M. (1995), “The 25 best business schools for entrepreneurs”, Success,
Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 27-37.
Curran, J. and Stanworth, J. (1989), “Education and training for enterprise: some problems of Research
classification”, Evaluation, Policy and Research, International Small Business Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 11-22. entrepreneurship
Daly, M. (1991), “The 1980s: a decade of growth in enterprise”, Employment Gazette, pp. 109-34, and education
March.
Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L. and Olofsson, C. (1994), “New firm formation and regional
development in Sweden”, Regional Studies, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 395-410. 713
Delmar, F. and Davidsson, P. (2000), “Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics
of nascent entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 1-23.
DTI (2001), Excellence and Opportunity: A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st Century,
Department of Trade and Industry, London, CM 4814.
Gartner, W.B. and Vesper, K.H. (1994), “Experiments in entrepreneurship education: successes
and failures”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 179-87.
Gatewood, E.J., Shaver, K.G., Powers, J.B. and Gartner, W.B. (2002), “Entrepreneurial expectancy,
task effort, and performance”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 187-206.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), “Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship
education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 56-77.
Hannon, P. (2006), “Teaching pigeons to dance: sense and meaning in entrepreneurship
education”, Education + Training, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 296-308.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2004), “The effectiveness of training for new business creation”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 249-69.
Honig, B. (2004), “Entrepreneurship education: towards a model of contingency-based business
planning”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 258-73.
Houston, K. and Mulholland, G. (2003), Entrepreneurial Mathematics Graduates, University of
Ulster, Jordanstown, mimeo.
Johnson, S. (2002), “Lifelong learning and SMEs: issues for research and policy”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 285-95.
Keeble, D. and Walker, S. (1994), “New firms, small firms and dead firms: spatial patters and
determinants in the United Kingdom”, Regional Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 411-27.
Knight, R.M. (1960), “A proposed approach to teaching entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 43-54.
Knight, R.M. (1987), Can Business Schools Produce Entrepreneurs? An Empirical Study, FER
Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 603-4.
Krueger, N.F. and Brazeal, D.V. (1994), “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-104.
Kuratko, D. (2003), Entrepreneurship Education: Emerging Trends and Challenges for the 21st
Century, Coleman Foundation White Paper Series.
Lazear, E.P. (2002), “Entrepreneurship”, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper
9109, NBER, Cambridge, MA, August.
Leonhardt, D. (1996), “Class acts in the ivy-covered halls”, Business Week, December 16, pp. 18-22.
Li, J. and Matlay, H. (2005), “Graduate employment and small businesses in China”, Industry and
Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 45-54.
ET Matlay, H. (1997), “Conceptual and contextual issues in entrepreneurship education: a critical
perspective”, paper presented at the Continuing Education and Training Research
48,8/9 Seminar, University of Warwick, Coventry.
Matlay, H. (2000), “Entrepreneurship education in British business schools: how reliable is the
evaluation of ‘success’?”, paper presented at the 10th International Forum on Technology
Management, Vienna, November.
714 Matlay, H. (2001), “Strategic issues in vocational education and training in central and Eastern
Europe”, Education + Training, Vol. 43 Nos 8/9, pp. 395-404.
Matlay, H. (2002), “Conceptual and contextual issues in entrepreneurship education revisited:
why is clarity eluding specialist research?”, paper presented at the 2nd SMEs in a Global
Economy Conference, Wollongong, Australia, July.
Matlay, H. (2005), “Entrepreneurship education in UK Business Schools: conceptual, contextual
and policy considerations”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 627-43.
Matlay, H. (2006a), “Entrepreneurship education: more questions than answers?”, Education and
Training, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 293-5.
Matlay, H. (2006b), “Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a critical perspective”, paper
presented at the 29th ISBE National Conference, Cardiff, October-November.
Matlay, H. and Storey, D.J. (2003), “Should you become an entrepreneur? Positive and negative
factors affecting individual career choices”, paper presented at the Mercia Fest, Warwick
University, Coventry, June.
Matlay, H. and Westhead, P. (2005), “Virtual teams and the rise of e-entrepreneurship in Europe”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3.
McCarthy, A., Morris, P.J. and Winn, L. (1997), A New Look at Undergraduate Entrepreneurship
Education, College of Business, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, mimeo.
McMullan, W.E. and Gillin, L.M. (2001), “Entrepreneurship education in the nineties, revisited”,
in Brockhaus, R.H., Hills, G.E., Klandt, H. and Welch, H.P. (Eds), Entrepreneurship
Education: A Global View, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 57-77.
Mitra, J. and Matlay, H. (2004), “Entrepreneurial and vocational education and training: lessons
from eastern and central Europe”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 53-69.
Peters, M. (2001), “Education, enterprise culture and the entrepreneurial self: a foucauldian
perspective”, Journal of Education Enquiry, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 58-71.
Reynolds, P.D. (1994), “Autonomous firm dynamics and economic growth in the United States
1986-1990”, Regional Studies, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 429-42.
Reynolds, P.D. (1997), “Who starts new firms? Preliminary explorations of firms-in-gestation”,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 449-62.
Reynolds, P.D. and White, S. (1992), “Finding the nascent entrepreneur: network sampling and
entrepreneurship gestation”, in Churchill (Ed.), Frontiers in Entrepreneurship Research,
Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
Rosa, P. (1993), “Family background and entrepreneurial activity in British Graduates”, in Atkin, R.,
Chell, E. and Mason, C. (Eds), New Directions in Small Business Research, Gower, Aldershot,
pp. 36-55.
Rosa, P. (1994), The Long-Term Supply of Graduate Entrepreneurs: Insights from a Scottish
Study, report to the New Venture Team, Scottish Enterprise, Centre for Entrepreneurship,
University of Sterling, Glasgow.
Rosa, P. (2003), “Hardly likely to make the Japanese tremble”, International Small Business
Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 435-57.
Rosa, P. and McAlpine, R. (1991), “Graduate career orientation towards enterprise”, in Davies, L. Research
and Gibb, A. (Eds), Recent Research in Entrepreneurship, Gower, Aldershot, pp. 73-105.
entrepreneurship
Shane, S. (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual – Opportunity Nexus,
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. and education
Simon, M., Houghton, S. and Aquino, K. (2000), “Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture
formation: how individuals decide to start companies”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 113-34. 715
Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S. and Tarabishy, A. (2002), “The state of entrepreneurship education in
the United States: a nationwide survey and analysis”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Solomon, G.T. and Fernald, L.W. (1991), “Trends in small business management and
entrepreneurship education in the United States”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 25-39.
Storey, D.J. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge, London.
Stuart, R.W. and Abetti, P.A. (1990), “Impact of entrepreneurial and management experience on
early performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 151-62.
Taylor, G.S. and Banks, M.C. (1992), “Entrepreneurs, small business executives, and large
business executives: a comparison of the perceived importance of current business issues”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 24-40.
Timmons, J.A. (2003), Entrepreneurial Thinking: Can Entrepreneurship Be Taught?, Coleman
Foundation White Paper Series.
Vesper, K.H. and Gartner, W.B. (1996), “Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education”,
paper presented at the National Academy of Management Association Meeting,
Cincinnati, OH, August 9-14.
Wagner, J. (2003), “The impact of personal characteristics and the regional milieu on the
transition from unemployment to self-employment: empirical evidence for Germany”,
Jahrbucher fur Nationalokonomie und Statistik, Vol. 223, pp. 204-22.
Wagner, J. (2004), “What a difference a Y makes – female and male nascent entrepreneurs in
Germany”, Discussion Paper No. 1134, Institute for the Study of Labour, Bonn, IZA, May.
Westhead, P. and Matlay, H. (2004), “Critical issues in graduate career choices”, Working Paper
No. 23, Global Independent Research, Coventry.
Westhead, P. and Matlay, H. (2006), “Skills associated with employment positions in SMEs and
favourable attitudes towards self-employment: longitudinal evidence from students who
participated in the Shell technology enterprise programme”, Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 93-124.
Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D. and Wright, M. (2005), “Experience and cognition: do novice, serial and
portfolio entrepreneurs differ?”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 72-98.
Winslow, E.K., Solomon, G. and Tarabishy, A. (1999), “Empirical investigation into
entrepreneurship education in the United States: some results of the 1997 National
Survey of Entrepreneurship”, paper presented at the USASBE Conference, San Diego, CA,
January 14-17.

Further reading
Aldrich, H. (1999), Organisations Evolving, Sage, London.
Baharun, R. and Ahmad, F.S. (2002), “Entrepreneurship education: a comparison of male and
female students in technical disciplines”, Akauntan Nasional, Vol. 9, September, pp. 30-3.
ET Borjas, G.J. (2000), Labour Economics, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
48,8/9 Bridge, S., O’Neill, K. and Cromie, S. (2003), Understanding Enterprise, Entrepreneurship and
Small Business, 2nd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Brockhaus, R.H., Hills, G.E., Klandt, H. and Welch, H.P. (2001), Entrepreneurship Education:
A Global View, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 57-77.
Burns, P. (2001), Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
716 Bygrave, W.D. and Hofer, C.W. (1991), “Theorising about entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 13-22, Winter.
Carsrud, A.L. and Johnson, R.W. (1989), “Entrepreneursh: a social psychological perspectivesip”,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 21-31.
Carter, N.M., Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G. and Gatewood, E.J. (2003), “The career reasons of
nascent entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 13-39.
Carter, S. and Ram, M. (2003), “Reassessing portfolio entrepreneurship: towards a
multidisciplinary approach”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 371-80.
Curran, J. and Blackburn, R. (2001), Researching the Small Enterprise, Sage, London.
Dana, L.P. (1992), “Entrepreneurial education in Europe”, Journal of Education for Business,
Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 74-8.
DfEE (2001), The National Skills Agenda: Opportunity and Skills in the Knowledge-Driven
Economy, DfEE, Nottingham.
DTI (1998), Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy, Department of
Trade and Industry, London, CM 1250.
Erikson, T. (2003), “Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneurial learning experiences among
potential entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 106-12.
Farmer, H.S. (1997), “Gender differences in career development”, in Farmer, H.S. (Ed.), Diversity
and Women’s Career Development, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 127-60.
Farmer, H.S., Wardrop, J., Anderson, M. and Risinger, R. (1995), “Women’s career choices: focus
on science, maths and technology careers”, Journal of Consultation Psychology, Vol. 42,
pp. 155-70.
Fernald, L.W. and Solomon, G.T. (1993), “Assessing the need for small business
management/entrepreneurship courses at the university level”, paper presented at the
17th National Small Business Consulting Conference.
Garavan, T.N. and O’Cinneide, B. (1994), “Entrepreneurship education and training programmes:
a review and evaluation – part 1”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 3-12.
Gartner, W.B. (1990), “What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Gatewood, E.J., Powers, J.B., Shaver, K.G. and Gartner, W.B. (2001), “The effects of perceived
persistence”, working paper, Johnson Centre for Entrepreneurship, Kelley School of
Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Gavron, R., Cowling, M., Holtham, G. and Westall, A. (1998), The Entrepreneurial Society,
Institute for Public Policy Research, London.
Gibb, A. and Cotton, J. (1998), “Work futures and the role of entrepreneurship and enterprise in
schools and further education”, paper presented at the DTI Conference, Enterprise and
Industry Education Unit, Durham University Business School, Durham, December.
Gillin, L.M., Powe, M., Dews, A.L. and McMullan, W.E. (1996), “An empirical assessment on the Research
returns to entrepreneurial education”, paper presented at the Basson Conference on
Entrepreneurship Research, Seattle, WA, March. entrepreneurship
Gual, J. (1996), The Social Challenge of the Creation of Employment in Europe, Edward Elgar, and education
Cheltenham.
Hamilton, B. (2000), “Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns to self
employment”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 604-31. 717
Hytti, U. and Alanko, J. (2000), “Entrepreneurship in the cyberspace – distance education
programme on entrepreneurship in the upper secondary school for adults”, paper
presented at the Adult Education and Culture, Working Together Conference, Helsinki,
September 7-10.
Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004), “What is ‘enterprise education’? An analysis of the objectives
and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries”, Education
+ Training, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 11-23.
Johnson, P.S. (1986), New Firms: An Economic Perspective, Allen and Unwin, London.
Katz, J. (2003), “The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education 1876-1999”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 283-300.
Keeble, D., Bryson, J.R. and Wood, P. (1991), “Small firms, business services growth and regional
development in the United Kingdom”, Regional Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 439-57.
Kirby, D.A. (2003), Entrepreneurship, McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead.
Lambing, P.A. and Kuehl, C.R. (2003), Entrepreneurship, 3rd ed., Pearson Education, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Levie, J. (1999), Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education in England: A Survey, London
Business School, London.
Li, J., Zhang, Y. and Matlay, H. (2003), “Entrepreneurship education in China”, Education +
Training, Vol. 45 Nos 8/9, pp. 495-505.
Luthje, C. and Franke, N. (2003), “The making of an entrepreneur: testing a model of
entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT”, R & D Management, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 135-47.
Mason, C. (1991), “Spatial variations in enterprise: the geography of new firm formation”,
in Burrows, R. (Ed.), Deciphering the Enterprise Culture: Entrepreneurship, Petty
Capitalism and the Restructuring of Britain, Routledge, London.
Matlay, H. (1996), “Are entrepreneurs born and can entrepreneurship be taught?”, paper
presented at SME Centre Research Seminar, University of Warwick, Coventry.
Matlay, H. (2005), “Entrepreneurship education in UK higher education institutes: a longitudinal
approach”, WP 14/05, Global Independent Research, Coventry.
Matlay, H. and Westhead, P. (2004), “From e-innovation to e-entrepreneurship: European
perspectives”, paper presented at the 27th ISBA National Small Firms Policy and Research
Conference, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, November.
McMullan, W.E. and Long, W.A. (1987), “Entrepreneurship education in the nineties”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Meyer, G.D. (2001), Major Unresolved Issues and Opportunities in Entrepreneurship Education,
Coleman Foundation White Paper Series.
Nabi, G.R. (2003), “Graduate employment and underemployment: opportunity for skill use and
career experiences amongst recent business graduates’”, Education + Training, Vol. 45
No. 7, pp. 371-82.
ET Oaxaca, R.L. and Ransom, M.R. (1994), “On discrimination and the decomposition of wage
differentials”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 61, pp. 5-21.
48,8/9 OECD (1998), Fostering Entrepreneurship, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Paris.
Parker, S. (2004), The Economics of Self-Employment and Entrepreneurship, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
718 Peterman, N. and Kennedy, J. (2003), “Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of
entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 129-44.
Reynolds, P.D. and White, S. (1997), The Entrepreneurial Process: Economic Growth, Men,
Women and Minorities, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Reynolds, P.D., Storey, D.J. and Westhead, P. (1994), “Cross-national comparisons of the variation
in new firm formation rates”, Regional Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 443-56.
Robinson, P.B. and Sexton, E.A. (1994), “The effect of education and experience on
self-employment success”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, pp. 141-56.
Ronstadt, R. (1985), “The educated entrepreneur: a new era of entrepreneurial education is
beginning”, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 13-17.
Starr, J. and Bygrave, W. (1991), “The assets and liabilities of prior star-up experience: an
exploratory study of multiple venture entrepreneurs”, in Churchill, N.C., Bygrave, W.D.,
Covin, J.G., Sexton, D.L., Slevin, D.P., Vesper, K.H. and Wetzel, W.E. (Eds), Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 213-27.
Stevenson, H.H. (2000), Why Entrepreneurship Has Won, USASBE National Conference, Coleman
White Paper, February.
Westhead, P. and Cowling, M. (1998), “Family firm research: the need for a methodological
rethink”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23, pp. 31-56.
Westhead, P. and Wright, M. (1998), “Novice, serial and portfolio founders: are they different?”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 173-204.
Westhead, P. and Wright, M. (2000), “Introduction”, in Westhead, P. and Wright, M. (Eds),
Advance in Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Zeithaml, C.P. and Rice, G.H. (1987), “Entrepreneurship/small business education in American
universities”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 44-57.

Corresponding author
Harry Matlay can be contacted at: Harry.matlay@ uce.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints