Entrepreneurship & Regional Development

Vol. 24, Nos. 9–10, December 2012, 837–859

A framework for entrepreneurial learning: A tribute to Jason Cope

Luke Pittawaya* and Richard Thorpeb
a
College of Business Administration, Georgia Southern University, P.O. Box 8154,
Statesboro 30460, GA, USA; bDepartment of Management Development,
Leeds University Business School, Maurice Keyworth Building,
University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

This paper explains Dr Jason Cope’s work on entrepreneurial learning, and

illustrates his approach and how it can be applied to deepen understanding
of, and practice in, entrepreneurship education. It begins with a biography
of Cope, which summarizes his academic life and offers a timeline for his
publications. This paper then explores his philosophical position, before
dividing his research into three main phases. In the first, it examines and
explains his early work into experiential learning; reflective learning;
learning from crises and the role social influences play in entrepreneurial
learning. In the second, developments stemming from his PhD are
explored. Here, ideas in relation to entrepreneurial learning and the links
he makes to transformative learning and double-loop learning are
discussed. Finally, in the third part, Cope’s entrepreneurial learning
framework is explained and key contributing concepts are introduced. This
part examines how Cope’s theoretical framework was used to undertake
research and subsequently to explain how entrepreneurs learn from failure.
In the final sections of this paper, the practical implications of his
contribution to entrepreneurship education are presented, in the contexts
both of higher education and of the development of students, and then for
entrepreneurs themselves.
Keywords: Jason Cope; entrepreneurial learning; entrepreneurship educa-
tion; failure

1. Introduction
This special issue on entrepreneurship education and regional development originally
had a fourth person as editor: Dr Jason Cope. On 31 October 2010, Jason tragically
died during a visit to Florida on an International Fulbright scholarship. His
involvement in this special issue, though, can still be seen in the selected papers,
which highlight his contribution to its theme. Jason was a consummate enthusiast for
all in which he was engaged, and his ideas remain in the conversations he had with
his colleagues about this project. As a consequence, this paper is a tribute to him. In
this, we introduce Jason’s work; explain its significance as best we can; and outline
the protocols he developed, which show how and where his ideas and empirical
research advance our understanding of entrepreneurial learning and education.

*Corresponding author. Email: lukepittaway@georgiasouthern.edu

ISSN 0898–5626 print/ISSN 1464–5114 online

ß 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.694268
http://www.tandfonline.com
838 L. Pittaway and R. Thorpe

This is no small task. Down (2010), writing an obituary for Jason, described his
scholarship thus:
. . . imagine it as the opening of a symphony: quiet and tentative to begin, coherent,
gradually building authority, suggesting major themes. We won’t now know how
magnificent it would have sounded. What we do know is that his project was an attempt
to move beyond checking facts. He was interested in the meaning – the phenomenology – of
things: learning, failure, above all entrepreneurship.
We recognize that it will be difficult to capture the complete work and do justice
to it in this paper, but we will attempt to highlight and illustrate how the symphony
was growing and building, and how various research projects and ideas fit together
as a whole. Whereas some academics search for what might be new, fashionable
topics, there is little doubt that Jason had an intellectual project, which he sustained
over many years.
We begin by providing a biography of Jason, including a timeline (in Section 2).
This serves to illustrate the timing of his key outputs. This paper progresses by
exploring the concepts that were the focus of his interest in entrepreneurial learning
(Section 3). We then explore the research conducted and link this to the theme of this
special issue: entrepreneurship education (Sections 4–6). Finally, this paper identifies
the contributions Jason made to the subject of entrepreneurial learning (Section 7),
and explains why we describe his contribution as a ‘theoretical framework of
entrepreneurial learning’.
For those familiar with Jason’s research, we hope that we have summarized his
contribution appropriately and proportionally. For those who are new to the field,
bound to encounter his contributions, we hope it will inspire you to follow in his
footsteps and develop the ideas from where he left off. We will never know now how
Jason’s symphony would have ended, had he lived to develop it fully, but we can
celebrate the contributions he has made to our understanding of aspects of
entrepreneurial learning and development. In so doing in the rest of this paper, we
refer to our colleague and friend by his surname, in keeping with standard academic
practice.

2. Embedding the contribution in a historical context: Biography and publications –

Cope 1972–2010
Cope began his academic career at Lancaster University Management School in
1991, as an undergraduate on the BBA degree in Management. Whilst a student, he
spent his placement year in a growing small business; and following graduation in
1995, he worked as an account manager for Xerox UK. However, with an enquiring
mind and an interest in academia, Cope quickly returned to Lancaster and its
Business Development Unit, where he worked as a project officer with small firms.
His experiences during this period influenced his ongoing research interests into
small-business development and entrepreneurship, and very soon later on he
registered for a PhD under the supervision of Professors Mary Rose and Ged Watts.
Cope’s PhD thesis, The entrepreneurial experience: Towards a dynamic learning
perspective of entrepreneurship, was well received. A number of papers were
forthcoming, even during the research; these focused on learning by doing (Watts,
Cope, and Hulme 1998; Cope and Watts 2000).
 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 839

On completion of his PhD in 2000, Cope took up his first academic appointment
within the Institute for Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development at Lancaster
University Management School. He flourished in this environment, working there
until 2008. During this early period of his career (2000–2008), Cope quickly
established himself as an outstanding scholar, often publishing alone but never
averse to collaborating and sharing his ideas with colleagues. He also managed to
establish an international reputation for his research on entrepreneurial learning. It
was during this period that he published – in Management Learning (Cope 2003), a
special issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (Cope 2005a) on entrepreneurial
learning which was edited by Leitch and Harrison (2005) and the International Small
Business Journal (Cope 2005b) – a paper in which he explained (and to some extent
justified) his methodological approach. Also in this period, he began to explore (with
others: Cope, Cave, and Eccles 2004) notions of business failure.
In 2004, having dedicated much of his time to writing for publication in top-tier
management journals, Cope spent a sabbatical in New Zealand at the University of
Canterbury Management School. He spent the time on collaborations: one with
Pittaway on entrepreneurship education and learning (Pittaway and Cope 2007a,
2007b), and another with Jack and Rose exploring aspects of social capital for a
special edition of the International Small Business Journal (Cope, Jack, and Ro 2007).
Early in 2009, he made a break with Lancaster and accepted a position as Senior
Lecturer and Director of Teaching with the Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship at
the University of Strathclyde. This was a difficult decision, but it represented an
important next step in his career. With a promotion and increased responsibilities,
Cope was active in redesigning the teaching on the undergraduate Business
Enterprise programme, whilst at the same time continuing to produce cutting-edge
research – the activity that culminated in the publication of his last paper, developing
further ideas on entrepreneurial failure in the Journal of Business Venturing (Cope
2010). Whilst at Strathclyde, Cope also continued to work with colleagues,
completing papers with Kempster (2010) and editing a special issue of Action
Learning and Practice (Thorpe et al. 2009) devoted to exploring aspects of leadership
development within small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
In many ways, it was the award of the prestigious International Fulbright
Scholarship that was the culmination of his career; with this came the opportunity to
visit Florida State University. At the time of Cope’s death, two of his papers were
under review and he had one manuscript under development with Down; both of the
papers under review in many ways developed the implications for training and
development from the understandings he had gained in his previous research. One
(with Cope, Kempster and Parry 2011) will be published in the International Journal
of Management Reviews and focuses on dimensions of distributed leadership in the
context of SMEs; the second was a contribution to Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, focusing on entrepreneurial learning and development.

3. Methodological perspective
When it came to methodology, Cope could be said to be firmly within a European
tradition, in sympathy with his academic contemporaries such as Down, Fletcher
and Steyaert. His work developed on qualitative constructionist lines, with an
emphasis on case research and the linguistic aspects of analysis. Cope’s (2005b)
840 L. Pittaway and R. Thorpe

approach to research is probably best set out in one of his own papers, ‘Researching
Entrepreneurship’. In this paper, Cope describes himself as essentially and
predominantly a phenomenologist. According to Holt (2008), phenomenology is a
method used when researchers wish to explain the meaning. They do this by stripping
out reference to abstracting historical or structural influences, instead seeking to
examine an experiencing subject’s direct and unmediated awareness of phenomena.
This self-reflection on how he conducted his research chimes well with the research
Cope produced in the early period of his career. A phrase he often used to describe
his approach was ‘the lived experience’ of entrepreneurs, which he sought to
understand. Although, many of us attempted to gain his interest in the historical and
cultural dimensions of entrepreneurial learning and behaviour, it was not until later
in his career that he began to include perspectives that embedded the historical (e.g.
his interest in Reuber and Fischer’s 1999 work) and the cultural (e.g. the role played
by entrepreneurial preparedness, with Cope citing the work of Harvey and
Evans 1995).
Cope saw this deeply rooted perspective – a focus on the lived experience, and on
understanding the sense that owner-managers made of their here-and-now – as
important in explaining why entrepreneurs acted and learnt in particular ways
and circumstances. This view explains the rationale for Cope’s approach and his
focus on particular learning events, or critical incidents at work. These he would
study in detail, and the primary data collection method employed was the in-depth
interview. Reviewing Cope’s papers through a methodological lens, it is not
now difficult to see why he initially had little appetite to extend his interests to
include a detailed social, cultural and historical examination of the entrepreneurs he
studied.
Cope’s (2005b) paper is in many ways a master class of methodological rigour. In
it, he cites the work of Thompson in order to justify his phenomenological stance,
and links this to conducting a phenomenological interview. Thompson, Locander,
and Pollio (1989) has a particular take on phenomenological interviewing, and Cope
makes the link between his own ontological and epistemological foundations – how
his philosophy relates to both methodology and method. For Cope, having clearly
set this out in advance was important, and it laid the foundations for him to be able
to publish in good journals. From these foundations, he was able to make the case
for the kind of in-depth unstructured interviews he employed. From our own
perspective, we make a distinction between strong positivism and strong
constructionism at either end of a methodological continuum, the mixing of which
is not philosophically desirable, even if some consider it possible. In methodological
terms, strong constructionism often takes the form of in-depth interviews and, in
Cope’s case, phenomenological interviews. Cope was also clearly influenced by Jones
(1985) and her explanations of what in-depth interviewing means in practice and the
skills required. For Cope, this meant a commitment to detailed interviewing of small
numbers of entrepreneurs in great depth, often using triggers to help them identify
particular incidents encountered at work on which they could focus their recollec-
tions and articulate their perspectives. It is still in many ways remarkable that Cope’s
PhD contained only six cases, but they were so rich and the analysis was so detailed
that it is not difficult to admire his approach.
Methodologically, Cope also drew inspiration from the work of Patton (1990),
particularly from his advocacy of informal interview conversations, and the adoption
 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 841

of naturalistic methods also supported by Lincoln in Guba (1985). So Cope, being an

exponent of strong constructionism, determined not to mix his methods or
compromize his approach by adding a quantitative dimension to his repertoire,
preferring instead to allow his respondents to speak for themselves. As many
consider that research exclusively employing qualitative methods often jeopardizes
the ability to publish in good journals, this was a bold decision, and showed the
confidence Cope had in himself and the quality of his work. He was also aware that
assumptions and values can be unwittingly brought into the process of research; this
concern to avoid bias was one of the reasons he brought an element of critical
reflection into his research. In his justification for taking the approach he did, we
argue, was a reaction against what he considered to be the superficiality of
approaches based on surveys and questionnaires (Cope 2005b, 164). Clearly, he was
influenced by other experienced researchers such as Birley (Cope 2005b, 169), who
suggested that, in the study of entrepreneurs, researchers must bring insights by
adopting different approaches and methodologies.
Focusing on Cope’s methodological stance, we find that four themes emerge as
important:
(1) a rejection of journalism as a style, supplanted by the importance of being
conscious of the context faced by the individual under investigation, in such a
way that the subjective and objective aspects can both be accommodated,
(2) the intentionality of consciousness,
(3) a presuppositionless philosophy,
(4) being as faithful as possible in the representation of a lived world.
Cope was also conscious that qualitative methods required a particular skill, both
when in the field gathering data and when interpreting this information to develop
theory.
In more recent papers, Cope focused on networking capital, the social resources
entrepreneurs have to obtain resources which they would not get from human or
financial capital. So, for example, in his 2007 paper for the International Small
Business Journal, Cope focuses on the significance that social capital might have in
an entrepreneur’s development, particularly the way networks are built and trust is
developed. His interest, though, is not simply related to the ‘upside’ benefits that
social capital brings but also on the darker aspects, often ignored by researchers. In
his most recent papers (on business failure), Cope widens his research and also his
methodological perspective still further to include the perspectives of others, in this
case those of venture capitalists. This interest in understanding the way entrepre-
neurs are seen from the perspective of others works towards a greater understanding
of how academics and educators could better assist entrepreneurs, and goes to the
heart of the intellectual project Cope was working towards.

4. Early beginnings: Conceptual framework phase 1

Adaptation and the role of adaptive learning in the growth process were Cope’s
intellectual starting points. The first study, carried out while a project researcher
(Watts, Cope, and Hulme 1998), explored the growth strategies of small food
producers in Cumbria and Lancashire. Their focus was to ‘explore the usefulness of
the Greiner life-cycle model (Greiner 1972) in interpreting the relationship between
842 L. Pittaway and R. Thorpe

personal and business experience and learning in a small firm’ (Watts, Cope, and
Hulme 1998, 101). Of particular interest was Greiner’s depiction of growth as
comprizing phases of stable expansion followed by ‘crises’, and obtaining a better
understanding of the nature of these ‘crises’ so as to understand more about
adaptation and learning. The research (a sample of 256 firms and 25 interviews)
offered a critique of Greiner’s ‘crises’ and elucidated two issues: first, that crises
involve both internal tensions arising from ongoing growth and pressures arising
from outside the firm and second, that crises themselves may not always be sudden
and unexpected but can be drawn out over time and can be anticipated. As Watts,
Cope, and Hulme (1998, 101) explain:
[In the Greiner model, crises] are essentially internal . . . they may be likened to growing
pains. However, a business is very much an open system and, in this sense, a basic
prerequisite of survival and growth is successful adaptation to the environment . . . not all
‘crises-inducing’ change is sudden or unexpected.
They remind researchers that a limitation on external knowledge places
restrictions on entrepreneurs’ ability to adapt, yet at the same time leaves open the
opportunity for learning, which may be crucially important if entrepreneurs are to
adapt to changing circumstances. As Watts, Cope, and Hulme (1998, 109) point out,
some of the decisions made were ‘clear examples of ‘‘strategy that happened’’ or
‘‘emergent strategy’’ rather than the deliberate, logically planned or ‘‘intended’’
notion of strategy’. ‘Adaptive learning’ then is required if an entrepreneur is to
successfully navigate the challenges presented in growing a business. In terms of the
nature of the crisis, particularly its duration, they explain: ‘What became strikingly
apparent were the frequently occurring accounts of ‘‘chance’’ incidents causing
changes in business direction, not all of which could be reasonably described as
crises’ (Watts, Cope, and Hulme 1998, 107). In this context, they recognized the
ability to successfully adapt or develop a ‘survival instinct’ driven by purposive acts
over short periods of time that allow for the survival or growth of the firm (Simon
1956; Watts et al. 1998). This first contribution, therefore, set the scene and provided
some of the building blocks on which Cope would develop his ideas over the coming
years: the use of critical incidents, an interest in and understanding of learning by
doing and developing understanding of learning through resolving complex and
often ambiguous situations at work.
As his ideas and approach developed, Cope began to put some conceptual ‘flesh
on the bones’ of his ideas, together with a range of other ideas that emanated from
his PhD (Cope 2001) and from interactions with his Lancaster colleagues,
particularly those in the Department of Management Learning and Leadership
(e.g. Burgoyne and Hodgson 1983; Reynolds 1997), and with other researchers in the
same field (Deakins and Freel 1998).
Following a period of reflection, a paper emerged that explored the learning
process of entrepreneurs, but this time in parallel with the development of the
business (Cope and Watts 2000, 104). Employing critical incidents, the paper draws
on Cope’s PhD data, which comprized a set of longitudinal case studies of six
entrepreneurs and their businesses, representing diversity of age, background, prior
experience, sector and age of firm (Cope and Watts 2000, 104). Using this richer
longitudinal dataset led to a number of interesting conceptual advances in
understanding.
 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 843

Influenced by Huber (1991) and from his own experience Cope understood that
cognitive change did not necessarily lead to changes in behaviour. Informed by the
work of his colleagues (e.g. Burgoyne and Hodgson 1983), Cope saw that learning
could be single loop, where the learning relates to one instance or circumstance or
double loop, where the learning was profound changing their whole perspective on
the way they approached strategies or problems. In the same way, the learning could
be said to be either superficial or deeper. Significant learning, it was recognized,
involves an ‘alteration of beliefs, viewpoints and perspectives that shape the
individual’s perception of the world’ (Cope and Watts 2000, 106). By further drawing
on the management learning literature, Cope and Watts were also able to make a
number of observations about entrepreneurial learning. First, they built on the idea
of ‘learning by doing’ by showing in detail the processes involved in a gradual change
in a person’s orientation as a consequence of a continual flow of information gained
via experience (Burgoyne and Hodgson 1983; Marsick and Watkins 1990). Learning
by doing, then, is seen as being a change in an entrepreneur’s background
consciousness that occurs gradually over time (Marsick and Watkins 1990). Second,
Cope and Watts recognize the importance of entrepreneurs being able to stand back
from the frenetic activity of their here-and-now in order to reflect on the decisions
made and the actions taken. This quality in an entrepreneur appeared to them to be
highly significant; reflective learning is when entrepreneurs are ‘thinking about the
problem or incident but are not ‘‘in the thick of it’’’ (Burgoyne and Hodgson 1983;
Cope and Watts 2000, 106).
Further, Cope and Watts suggest that both forms of learning can occur at the
same time, with reflective learning and learning through experience being supportive
of each other, and cognitive change occurring only once an individual has reflected
on their experiences (Burgoyne and Hodgson 1983; Reynolds 1997). Certainly, the
ability of entrepreneurs to proactively reflect appears to make learning more effective
(Megginson 1996). Finally, in their conceptual discussion, Cope and Watts begin to
build upon the initial ideas in relation to ‘learning through crises’. As the research
design employed the use of the critical incident method, they are able to demonstrate
how learning and adaptation are stimulated through discontinuities or events (Wolfe
and Kolb 1984). They argue that, through ‘growing pains’ of this kind, entrepreneurs
go well beyond learning by doing (West and Wilson 1995). From this paper, Cope
and Watts (2000) draw a number of key conclusions, first on the nature of the critical
events:
. . .the term ‘incident’ often tends to trivialize the diversity of critical experiences faced by
entrepreneurs, who often endure prolonged, difficult and highly emotional critical periods
or episodes . . . the ‘critical incident’ is a complex phenomenon that does not occur
independently of the entrepreneur but in many cases is a change in perception and
awareness that stimulates the entrepreneur into action. (112–113)
They conclude that there are ‘critical incidents’ (discrete events), which occur
during prolonged ‘critical episodes’, and that these are closely linked. They see the
critical incidents as ‘eruptions’ that culminate from fundamental unresolved issues
(episodes). On the impact that these periods have on learning, they conclude that
‘critical incidents described here accelerated this process of learning and growing self-
awareness and therefore often proved to be seminal moments within the process of
change’ (Cope and Watts 2000, 113) and that ‘they were powerful events in the
histories of the businesses and stimulated fundamental and transformational learning
844 L. Pittaway and R. Thorpe

Forms of learning Characteristics of learning

Learning by doing

Reflective learning
Personal exposure

Mistakes and failure

Learning through crises

Figure 1. Cope’s conceptual framework (stage 1).

for the entrepreneurs concerned’ (Cope and Watts 2000, 114). The events they
observed were, therefore, complicated, prolonged and simultaneously transformative
for both the individuals and the businesses, and represent extremely powerful and
significant periods in terms of learning, even when the experience may be negative for
the business and/or the individual at the time.
Second, Cope and Watts found that these events were extremely emotion-laden,
and they began to see and articulate the role played by what they refer to as ‘personal
exposure’ within entrepreneurial learning. They suggest that ‘the perceived ‘‘critical
incident’’ is essentially an emotional event, in that it represents a period of intense
feelings, both at the time and during its subsequent reflective interpretation’ (Cope
and Watts 2000, 114). This heightened sense of emotion appears to form a crucial
role in learning and is an aspect that Cope develops in his later work.
Finally, another aspect recognized at this stage and taken further in later papers
is the important role that ‘mistakes and failure’ play in entrepreneurial learning.
Cope and Watts’ data indicated that the most powerful learning experiences were
gained by entrepreneurs who attributed both the incidences and their learning to
their own mistakes. The development of Cope’s conceptual framework at this stage is
illustrated in Figure 1.

5. Capturing the lived experience of respondents through understanding

discontinuous events and the nature of higher-order learning: Conceptual
framework phase 2
During this second stage of Cope’s development, his ideas broadened, leading to
greater sophistication in his thinking about ‘discontinuous events’, ‘higher-level
learning’, and ‘critical reflection’ and the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial learning
(Cope 2003, 2005a). In his third paper, Cope explored aspects of his methodology,
 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 845

and his 2003 paper saw a further development in his exploration of entrepreneurial
learning and its links to the management learning literature. It is also possible to see
connections made to other researchers with a similar focus (e.g. Reuber and Fischer
1993; Gibb 1997; Young and Sexton 1997; Deakins and Freel 1998; Rae and
Carswell 2000; Sullivan 2000; Taylor and Thorpe 2000; Gold, Holman, and Thorp
2002). Cope’s contributions here are to widen the distinction between two forms of
entrepreneurial learning – ‘learning by doing’ and ‘learning through critical episodes
or events’ – to show that whilst entrepreneurs are action-oriented and learning
inherently experience-based, ‘entrepreneurial learning does in fact reflect the
importance of experience as a central consideration of all learning’ and that for
researchers to understand entrepreneurial learning fully they must go beyond this to
‘explore more deeply how entrepreneurs learn’ (Cope 2003, 430). Again, Cope
reaffirms the importance of ‘learning episodes’ that, when they occur, transform the
entrepreneur’s approach to life and work. For Cope, these episodes offer far more
explanatory power than does simple day-to-day experience (Young and Sexton 1997;
Rae and Carswell 2000), and he explains this focus on understanding learning from
these seminal events of crises and discontinuity in the following way:
This more gradual, incremental aspect of entrepreneurial learning aside, there is a pressing
need to develop a deeper understanding of the process of learning and the specific forms of
learning associated with the management and resolution of more discontinuous events.
(Cope 2003, 431)
It is in this second phase that Cope also expands and develops his earlier ideas on
the role that ‘personal exposure’, emotional exposure, financial exposure and social
risk play in entrepreneurial learning. These themes, he points out, illustrate the
complex and dynamic relationship that exists between entrepreneurs and their firms,
highlighted but not developed in his previous research. He draws attention to the
degree of ‘investment of self’ that entrepreneurs deliver, something that is well
beyond what might take place in other contexts. In this later research, these
observations are more nuanced:
Many entrepreneurs commit significant personal resources to creating and managing a
small venture and in so doing expose both themselves and their families to the
considerable financial, emotional and social risks associated with small business ownership.
(Cope 2003, 430)
The interrelationship that Cope sees between personal exposure and business
performance is an intricate one, where entrepreneurs face real impacts on their
emotional and financial wellbeing when their business goes through periods of
discontinuity (Cope 2003). One can speculate that periods of intense personal crises
might also impact on business performance, leading to learning outcomes that
fundamentally change the relationship between the entrepreneur and their business.
Cope sees this focus on crisis (which he invariably refers to as discontinuity), where
challenge and opportunity produce significant learning or transformations, as linked
to the work of other researchers (e.g. Daudelin 1996; Appelbaum and Goransson
1997; Kleiner and Roth 1997; Terhan and Pedler 2010). The causes he identifies as
‘heightened attention’ and awareness as a consequence of new or unique situations,
where ‘experimentation’ is required to address the challenging issues faced and forces
entrepreneurs ‘to question their taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions and
reframe their understanding of the situation at hand’ (Cope 2003, 431). There is
clearly a close link here, which Cope acknowledges, between other researchers’
846 L. Pittaway and R. Thorpe

concepts, such as Argyris and Schön’s (1978) notions of single- and double-loop
learning, Engeström’s (2001) ideas in relation to expansive learning, and Bateson’s
(1973) and Fiol and Lyles’ (1985) views of how learning takes place at different
levels, where the highest level is transformation and as a consequence the most
significant. Cope himself sees the difference between double-loop learning and
transformational learning in the context of entrepreneurs as being:
.the entrepreneur developing a renewed understanding or redefinition of the organizational
processes and strategies that are employed within his or her organization. In contrast,
transformative learning has a distinctly personal dimension and has the capacity to
stimulate considerable changes in the entrepreneur’s self-understanding. (Cope 2003, 437)
Cope also draws on the work of Nicolini and Mesnar (1995) in seeing the
‘discontinuities’ as breakdowns in the natural order and flow of the way
organisations function; it is through the resolutions and tensions that ‘entrepreneurs
can experience distinctive forms of ‘‘higher-level’’ learning from facing, overcoming
and reflecting on significant opportunities and problems during the entrepreneurial
process’ (Cope 2003, 432).
Cope’s final contribution from his 2003 paper emanates from his exploration of
the nature of the higher learning that occurs when the entrepreneurs went through
these specific discontinuous events. Yet again, drawing on the managerial learning
literature, he attempts to ‘distinguish between more practical, routine, adaptive
learning and more fundamental learning that generates new understandings and new
cognitive ‘‘theories of action’’’ (Cope 2003, 432). While these are seen to emerge in
many forms, often involving different terminology from different disciplinary
perspectives, lower- and higher-level learning can be observed and he represents these
in a table (434), concluding that, ‘although learning levels are often presented in
discrete, dichotomous terms, it is important to remember that they are actually parts
of a continuum’ (Cope 2003, 435).
Cope’s conclusions are that although it is difficult to distinguish between these
two forms of learning due to the richness of the learning experiences during a
discontinuous event, they appear to lead to both personal and organisational
learning. In terms of transformative learning, there is an explicit recognition that
learning is triggered by some kind of ‘disorienting dilemma’ or ‘crises’ that occur in
the entrepreneur’s personal life (Mezirow 1991). From his research data, Cope
suggests the following:
(i) As a consequence of a close interrelationship between the entrepreneur and
the business, organisational discontinuous events play an important role in
stimulating transformative personal learning.
(ii) The catalyst for transformative learning is not always ‘externally imposed’
but instead is often ‘self-imposed’ and can be the result of mistakes made by
the entrepreneur, particularly where more serious mistakes can trigger an
organisational crisis for the business.
(iii) Both double-loop and transformative learning outcomes appear to be
triggered by discontinuous events.
(iv) Much higher-order learning appears to occur as an outcome of ‘critical
reflection’.
This final point links back to the earlier paper where the role of reflection is
explained as being of importance if it ‘challenges personal norms, assumptions and
 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 847

Forms of learning Higher forms of learning Characteristics of learning

Self- Externally
Learning by doing
imposed imposed

Reflective learning Transformative

Critical learning
reflection
Personal exposure
Situated learning Double-loop Emotional exposure
learning Financial exposure
Social risk

Mistakes and failure

Experimentation
Learning through crises Heightened attention

Figure 2. Cope’s conceptual framework (stage 2).

taken-for-granteds’. . . that could be described, more specifically, as inward critical

self-reflection’ (Cope 2003, 444). As Cope points out:
The terms deep reflection or intense reflection, for example, could quite easily be
substituted to describe the reflective activity of both Andrew and Simon. It is simply the
notion that these individuals engaged in a form of reflection that was fundamental and
deeply challenging and, therefore, significantly different from more routinized or ‘simple’
reflection.
The point here is that Cope believes that entrepreneurs engage in a deeply
personal form of reflection, one that allows them to critically analyse their own
perceptions and assumptions and to consider how these might impact on the efficacy
of their own actions, and thereby on their businesses. His field research certainly did
provide evidence that non-routine events represent a key entrepreneurial learning
mechanism that leads to a higher-order form of learning and that ‘active encounters’
with others also demonstrate that these events are not entirely isolated (to the
individual) and but also involve a social component. The developments of Cope’s
second phase are summarized in Figure 2.

6. Widening the sense making process – cultural historical contexts: conceptual

framework phase 3
It was the recognition of the importance of a social dimension that led to the third
phase of development of Cope’s framework. During this phase, Cope augmented his
ideas from other fields and widened his interests in entrepreneurial learning to the
United States. Publishing in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (Cope 2005a;
Leitch and Harrison 2005; Harrison and Leitch 2008), he takes stock of what is
already known by developing a conceptual framework, which we refer to here as
Cope’s entrepreneurial learning framework. He says: ‘As a literature on learning in
848 L. Pittaway and R. Thorpe

entrepreneurship contexts is still emerging, the main thrust of this paper is to provide
a robust conceptual basis for developing further research on this important subject’
(Cope 2005a, 377). The framework offers three very distinctive strands, each
interconnected: ‘dynamic temporal phases of entrepreneurial learning; interrelated
processes of entrepreneurial learning; and overarching characteristics of entrepre-
neurial learning’ (Cope 2005a, 377). Within these strands, Cope presents a number of
new concepts – entrepreneurial preparedness, learning history and learning task –
but essentially the aim of the paper is to draw together current research in order to
produce a more coherent framework. Two phases of learning are presented –
learning prior to a start-up, and learning post-start-up.
Again, Cope indicates the importance of researchers understanding how
entrepreneurs learn from formative experiences and identifying what he refers to
as key entrepreneurial learning mechanisms (e.g. critical learning events). Also
highlighted is the importance we have already discussed of the emotional dimension
of learning. Cope now includes an aspect of learning processes – what he calls
generative processes (Gibb 1997), of which he offers two forms, ‘proactive generative
learning’ and ‘reactive generative learning’. For Cope, this captures that element of
learning where reflection on action informs future action (Kolb 1984). But for us, the
most significant aspect of this third phase is his recognition of the social and
contextual dimensions that had not previously had great prominence. Here he
recognizes that ‘learning is located within certain situations and contexts and that
learning is an intrinsically social process’. Drawing on Lave and Wenger (1991, 31),
he points out that learning is ‘situated’ or is an ‘integral and inseparable aspect of
social practice’. As a consequence, Cope indicates that understanding the learning
environment within which the entrepreneur is embedded (Gibb 1997) needs to be as
much a part of his learning framework as other aspects. He points to a whole array
of social relationships (e.g. with domestic partners, friends and mentors) and
contexts that might have a bearing on entrepreneurial learning. These, he
acknowledges, can also be the cause of various kinds of conflict (e.g. relationship
and social conflict) that can lead to higher-level forms of entrepreneurial learning.
The new concepts that the paper introduces, such as learning histories and
entrepreneurial preparedness, have generally been drawn from elsewhere and
illustrate Cope’s wider understanding of the literature. So, for example, the concept
of learning histories draws on the work of Reuber and Fischer (1999) in order to
explain how prospective entrepreneurs bring experience to the process of start-up.
This accumulation of skills and experience has also been described as entrepreneurial
preparedness (Harvey and Evans 1995), and includes many components, such as
personal attributes, career and personal life-cycles, skills, goals and motivations
(Harvey and Evans 1995). Cope (2005a) reconceptualizes this somewhat by seeing:
. . . entrepreneurial preparedness as a cumulative learning process [that] has strong
similarities to the concept of ‘anticipatory socialization’, which is described as the collective
prior experiences and learning that prepares an individual for an entrepreneurial
career . . . preparing for entrepreneurship can be an implicit and explicit process that has
personal and interactive dimensions; such learning and development occurs throughout an
individual’s life rather than concentrated during the immediate start-up phase. (378)
It is as a consequence of such entrepreneurial preparedness that researchers need
to appreciate the ways in which entrepreneurs perceive new situations, learn from
them, and in turn link them to their prior learning, constantly changing learning
 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 849

history in a cumulative manner that both restricts and enables future actions
(Minniti and Bygrave 2001). This dynamic development moving backwards in time
(stock of experience), inwards (introspection about self), outwards (interaction with
others), and forwards (in terms of visualizing the future) can be seen as central to the
understanding of Cope’s entrepreneurial learning framework.
Yet another new concept which Cope (2005a) draws into his framework from
wider reading relates to the importance of the learning task in entrepreneurial
learning (Minniti and Bygrave 2001). He conceptualizes this as follows:
In appreciating the past, present, and future all impact on the entrepreneurial learning
task, factors such as the environment within which the business operates, the nature of the
business and its staff, and its concomitant level of growth will all have a appreciable role to
play in defining the learning challenge. A key argument of this article is that it is vital to
view each entrepreneur’s learning task as dynamic, contextual and cumulative.
(Cope 2005a, 379)
As the context of each entrepreneur’s experience is likely to be both dynamic and
unique, it is clearly difficult for researchers to categorize entrepreneurial learning
tasks in any meaningful way. Cope, however, does offer some categories: learning
about oneself; learning about the business; learning about the environment and
entrepreneurial networks; learning about small business management; and learning
about the nature and management of relationships (Cope 2005a, 380).
In terms of generative learning highlighted by Gibb (1997), Cope suggests: ‘There
is the notion that, through reflection, individuals are not only able to learn from
events and experiences, but they are also able to ‘‘bring forward’’ this learning to new
situations and encounters’ (Cope 2005a, 386). Generative learning processes,
therefore, allow for reflections to be applied to future intentions and further actions.
In this sense, Cope sees generative learning as being both retrospective and
prospective, drawing forward prior experience into new actions. As he explains:
. . . the importance of generative learning rests on its ability to enable entrepreneurs to
abstract and generalize across contexts, to recognize patterns and build relationships
between different situations and events. Generative learning outcomes not only allow for
more effective action, but also allow for more effective action in a broader range of new
situations, thereby creating higher-order skills that are generalizable and lead to greater
transfer of learning. (Cope 2005a, 386)
Cope (2005a) suggests two forms of generative learning. The first is ‘adaptive’,
where ‘cumulative learning through experience enables entrepreneurs to develop
what could be described as a ‘‘cognitive store’’ of accessible experiential learning,
which they are able to reflect upon and subsequently utilize in similar situa-
tions . . . [or] the acquisition of know-how’ (Cope 2005a, 386); this adaptive aspect is
also suggested by Young and Sexton (1997) and Minniti and Bygrave (2001). The
second form is ‘proactive generative learning’, which Cope describes as ‘a learning
process that enables entrepreneurs to become sensitized to potential critical incidents
by becoming attuned to factors and circumstances that may become critical’ (Cope
2005a, 386). Thought of as a kind of ‘cognitive early warning system’, this enables
entrepreneurs to visualize and anticipate future critical issues or events before they
occur.
In sum, Cope’s (2005a) paper to some extent completes a framework that brings
together his understandings of how entrepreneurial learning takes place (Figure 3)
and his final paper, in many ways, applies this framework to explore an important
 850

Dynamic temporal phases Interrelated processes Characteristics of Learning tasks

(entrepreneurship) learning

Forms of learning Higher forms

Learning prior to start- Learning about oneself
Trial and error
up
Learning by doing
Self-imposed
Learning post-start-up transformative Experimentation Learning about the
Reflective learning learning venture
Social risk
Backward Forward
External
transformative Entrepreneurial
Stock of Entrepreneurial Stock of
learning preparedness
experience preparedness Critical Reflection experience

Double-loop
Inward Outward learning Social conflict

Dynamic temporal phases Situated learning Relationship conflict

(failure) Learning about
Proactive
L. Pittaway and R. Thorpe

relationships
generative
Aftermath Learning through Heightened attention
crises learning
Learning about venture
Recovery Emotional exposure
Reactive creation/management
generative
Re-emergence learning Financial exposure

Figure 3. Cope’s entrepreneurial learning framework.

 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 851

aspect of entrepreneurial learning, namely business failure (Cope 2010). In this

paper, Cope focuses on an empirical study originally undertaken with Lancaster
colleagues Cave and Eccles. In it, they examine perceptions of failure, in both the US
and the UK (Cope, Cave, and Eccles 2004). The data derived from this 2004 paper
focuses on a comparison of venture capitalists’ attitudes to failure and offers insights
into the way failure is conceptualized (Cope, Cave, and Eccles 2004; Cope 2010).
Cope applies his entrepreneurial learning framework to the context of business
failure, from (we suspect) a deeply held conviction that more empirical studies are
needed in the field as opposed to more theory:
. . . what emerges is a lack of rich substantive evidence to support conceptualizations,
particularly within the entrepreneurial context. It appears almost axiomatic that learning
occurs in relation to failure, and yet a clear articulation of the specific learning processes
and outcomes of venture failure remains elusive. (Cope 2010, 606)
His findings are presented as temporal phases: ‘aftermath’, ‘recovery’ and ‘re-
emergence’. The paper, and the detailed analysis of each of these temporal phases,
show how valuable failure can be as a learning experience and how this can impact
on future entrepreneurial success. Cope (2010) concludes that ‘failure warrants a
much more prominent position in discussions of entrepreneurship at aca-
demic, policy-maker and adviser levels’ (Cope 2010, 620). The paper also shows
the value of his entrepreneurial learning framework when applied within a specific
context of learning. It is also evident from his endeavour that this application to the
context of failure could easily be extended to other contexts relating to entrepre-
neurship and possibly to other comparable business models.

7. The practical impact: Implications for entrepreneurship education

The research we have summarized here has made a significant contribution to
helping fellow researchers understand how entrepreneurs learn, particularly with
regard to contexts where they face crises or venture failure. Cope began to explore
the implications of his work with Pittaway and together they published two papers
(Pittaway and Cope 2007a, 2007b). We consider that the impact of Cope’s work
needs to be considered from two perspectives: the implications for educational
practice in higher education and for programmes dedicated to entrepreneurs. The
contributions that Cope’s framework makes to both areas are significant and, as a
consequence, we have restricted ourselves to offering an overview of the key issues.
By so doing, we hope that more detailed research will follow and build on the value
of this framework within the educational domain.

7.1. Entrepreneurship education in colleges and universities

There are many concepts in Cope’s entrepreneurial learning framework that have
validity in the educational context. The framework throws forward many questions,
such as
(i) To what extent does current pedagogy in entrepreneurship education
emphasize the way entrepreneurs learn as opposed to ‘experienced others’
offering advice?
852 L. Pittaway and R. Thorpe

(ii) What approaches and techniques might be used to enable students to

understand and appreciate the nature of the entrepreneurial life (e.g. by
placing students in real firms)?
(iii) How do you stimulate and enable students to learn in similar ways to
entrepreneurs, giving them relevant experiences and learning opportunities?
(iv) If you were to develop appropriate techniques, how would you assess such
learning, for example through developing a student’s critical reflective
abilities?
(v) How would these more innovative forms be received and treated in
educational institutions, so the progress made might be reviewed on a
regular basis to help those involved in entrepreneurial education get back to
basics?
These are just some of the many questions that might arise and have already been
considered by Pittaway and Cope (Pittaway and Cope 2007a, 2007b; Pittaway et al.
2011). From Cope’s first conceptual framework (Figure 1), Pittaway and Cope
(2007a) already concluded that educational programmes needed to embed learning
by doing, reflection, and learning through crises into their design. Action or learning
from doing ‘can be conceptualized in three parts: ‘‘the act of doing,’’ ‘‘the experience
gained in the doing’’ and the ‘‘learning accumulated from the experience’’’ (Pittaway
et al. 2011, 36). We know that traditional educational practice does not inherently
embed such ‘action-based’ learning into its practice, and Cope’s research suggests
that such forms of learning are both essential and relevant to entrepreneurship
education. Pittaway and Cope (2007a) make this point when exploring how to
simulate entrepreneurial learning:
The entrepreneurship literature highlights the role of action-orientation and experientially
based learning. Creating a simulated context for student learning, therefore, requires a
project-based activity that is hands-on and experiential, requiring proactive behaviour.
A student simulation needs to enable a context whereby students do something
entrepreneurial and in doing so learn experientially. It is not simply good enough to do,
however; students must also reflect on their action in order to learn. (Pittaway and
Cope 2007a)
As this quotation indicates, entrepreneurial action is not in itself sufficient to
enable effective education. Action must also be followed by reflection, which needs
to be sophisticated enough to encourage all four forms we have identified (inward,
outward, backward and forward). A second component important in simulating
entrepreneurial learning is ‘learning through crises’. Those interested in significant
learning (Pittaway and Cope 2007a; Thorpe et al. 2008; Gold and Thorpe 2010;
Pittaway et al. 2011) have all demonstrated that crises are rather difficult to simulate
in an educational context; but also show that some element of grounding in reality is
required. In addition, students rarely have the same degree of emotional and
financial exposure as entrepreneurs running their businesses; as a consequence, the
affective impact of learning is naturally lower and, therefore, the transformative
potential related to failure much more difficult to tap. As we have highlighted,
making mistakes and failing outright are major components of entrepreneurial
learning and it seems to us essential that attempts are made to build these into
educational designs. This appears more relevant than ever as educational practice
has become more accustomed to ensuring all students do well, as opposed to
recognizing that failure and mistakes are in reality an important component of
 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 853

learning. Finally, Pittaway and Cope (2007a) argue strongly for the creation in
learning programmes of ‘personal or emotional exposure’, pointing out:
It requires the creation of an uncertain and ambiguous context encouraging students to step
outside [of] taken-for-granted assumptions. Uncertainty in an educational programme
replicates the circumstances in which an entrepreneur founds a business because starting a
venture is an uncertain endeavour. Adding ambiguity also heightens emotional exposure,
which is inherent in entrepreneurial learning (Pittaway and Cope 2007a, 213)
So, taking forward Cope’s first-stage conceptual framework and addressing its
implication for entrepreneurship education, can, we believe, lead educators to
significant innovations in educational practice. For example, there needs to be
‘entrepreneurial action’, ‘sophisticated reflection’ on actions taken, an opportunity
to ‘learn from mistakes’, and ‘uncertainty’ and ‘ambiguity’ built into educational
design, so students can experience a degree of ‘personal exposure’.
Cope’s second-stage framework (Figure 2) adds new issues for entrepreneurship
educators to consider. The first relates to the situated nature of the learning,
demonstrated in much of Cope’s later work. This social dimension of learning has
already been highlighted by fellow researchers such as Holman, Pavlicka, and
Thorpe (1996), Gibb (1997), Taylor and Thorpe (2004) and Jones, Macpherson, and
Thorpe (2010), as well as through Cope’s working relationships with colleagues.
Here, conflict and social risk also play their part and to Cope are essential
characteristics, impacting on the context of learning and what entrepreneurs gain
from their experiences. When focused on entrepreneurship education per se, it is
evident that the relevant ‘social communities of practice’ need to be fully engaged in
the education of students (Rae 2002; Hamilton 2004; Cope 2005a). Pittaway and
Cope (2007a) highlight this in their paper; asserting that ‘learners should interact
with the target community and appreciate authentic work practices. In this way
students ‘‘pick-up’’ invaluable ‘‘know-how’’ – not just information but also manner
and technique – from being on the periphery of competent practitioners’ (Pittaway
and Cope 2007a, 216). Situating learning requires, therefore, the involvement of the
‘community of practice’ and learning designs that simulate the component of
learning that relates to the social. Valuable forms of pedagogy for entrepreneurship
educators to consider, therefore, include entrepreneurial guest lectures, entrepreneurs
in residence, small-business consultancy projects, and team-based project work
(Pittaway and Cope 2007b): in fact, any pedagogy that draws students closer to the
social practice of ‘being an entrepreneur’.
The final additional insight from Cope’s second-stage conceptual framework is
that he broadens the range of relevant learning characteristics. Personal exposure is
one such characteristic, and, as we have seen, includes three forms of exposure:
emotional, financial and social risk. Whilst simulating emotional and financial
exposure has been discussed in previous studies (Pittaway and Cope 2007a; Pittaway
et al. 2011), social risk has not. Most recognize how entrepreneurs might experience
financial risk; fewer recognize how exposure to social risk occurs. Social risk includes
such things as damaged personal relationships with significant others, the risk of lost
personal credibility, and the risk of isolation from personal business networks. In
terms of entrepreneurship education, this leads to the question: how can we raise the
potential for social risk in an adequate and acceptable way when seeking to simulate
entrepreneurial learning? And should educators indeed seek to do this at all? If they
should, then possible ways might be long-term group work, larger groups (12 to 15
854 L. Pittaway and R. Thorpe

students) and peer assessment. All have the potential to draw in some social risk for
students but is this enough to simulate entrepreneurial learning? Other characteristics
of importance are the role of experimentation (trial-and-error learning) and the
creation of heightened attention and awareness when mistakes are made. Both
require students to experience running a business (or other relevant real-life project)
as well as making mistakes while doing so.
In the final entrepreneurial learning framework (Figure 3) developed by Cope
(2005a), there are a number of new issues presented and more yet to be considered by
entrepreneurship educators. The first are the dynamic temporal phases. These
question the way programmes in entrepreneurship education are organized. For
example, is it correct to organize courses around particular content themes (e.g.
entrepreneurship, small business, venture capital, and family business)? Or should
programmes instead be organized around temporal phases that have unique and
significantly different dynamics (e.g. pre-start-up, post-start-up, management of
small business, managing a growing business, taking on venture finance and so on?).
Cope’s framework also points to a significant diversity in an individual’s ‘stock of
learning experiences’ and consequent ‘entrepreneurial preparedness’, implying that
different students will come to the same courses with different capabilities. In this
case, should educators cater for these differences? If so, how can these be
accommodated? In addition, the framework adds new forms of learning task,
which might be considered outcomes of the learning process. These raise questions
about how educators might encourage different forms of learning: about oneself;
about specific ventures experienced; about relationships and networks; and about
venture creation and management. Each of these in its turn needs to be considered
within educational designs. Overall, the entrepreneurial learning framework devel-
oped by Cope (2005a) suggests a number of compelling issues for entrepreneurship
educators; many of these still need to be discussed and resolved.

7.2. Education and development of entrepreneurs

In a recent paper on action learning, Pittaway et al. (2009) explore the role of
entrepreneurial learning in education for entrepreneurs. Their exposition exploits
much of Cope’s work on entrepreneurial learning in order to better frame how
entrepreneurs might be more effectively developed. Existing entrepreneurship
programmes have experienced a number of problems that might have been avoided
if more of what we know in theory was applied to new educational designs. The
problems so often encountered include
(i) Problem of engagement: Programmes, often government backed, are
designed to support learning for entrepreneurs but have failed to gain
sufficient uptake because they fail to engage entrepreneurs in the way they
wish to learn (Stanworth and Gray 1991; Storey 1994; Stewart and Beaver
2004).
(ii) Problem of context: Management of small businesses varies, having many
different types, stages of growth, and industries. However, most training
provision fails to fulfil this diversity of need (Thomson et al. 1997; Devins
and Gold 2000).
 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 855

(iii) Problem of value: Entrepreneurs find it extremely difficult to see how

training programmes will support their business with genuinely useful
business outcomes (Gibb 1997; Thomson et al. 1997).
These challenges, it is argued, show that current provision is supply led and does
not fully reflect a demand-led approach that values how entrepreneurs learn.
Consequently, programmes are often out of step with the needs of entrepreneurs.
Cope’s framework can be instructive and useful in the design of programmes that
will be more effective. The implications of the framework are extensive. First, the
concepts of ‘stock of experience’ and ‘entrepreneurial preparedness’ indicate that
entrepreneurs have existing knowledge that they bring to any educational context
and thus require ‘learning designs that employ the ‘‘stock of entrepreneurial
experience’’ that each participant has and allow participants time to reflect in a
variety of ways on experienced gained’ (Pittaway et al. 2009, 267). Second, reflection
on the experience they have, and the process they developed to share this with others,
becomes important in encouraging learning loops, bringing forward experience in the
way articulated by Cope (Mezirow 1990). Also key is the importance of ‘critical
reflection’ in the learning process; as well as the different forms of ‘reflection’, the
role of the entrepreneur’s ‘stock of experience’ and the ‘situated nature of learning’
are all acknowledged as encouraging generative learning and, it is argued, needed for
educational designs to work (Gibb 1997; Cope 2005a; Pittaway et al. 2009). Third,
the entrepreneurial learning ‘task’ is acknowledged in Cope’s framework as having to
be context specific, thereby illustrating the belief that learning designs need to ‘allow
participants to engage in exploring problems that are specific to their particular
business and industry’ (Pittaway et al. 2009, 268). Other concepts in the framework,
such as ‘learning by doing’, require learning designs that involve ‘actions’,
‘experimentation’ and ‘experience’. The ‘emotional’ character of entrepreneurial
learning and the ‘social and relational risk’ aspects require learning designs that
engage social networks in the learning process. The highlighting of the ‘situated
nature of learning’ again shows how learning through ‘networks’ is critical and
requires trust, respect and a shared sense of experience and endeavour to be
generated during a programme (Sullivan 2000).
These issues highlight the fact that Cope’s framework has significant ramifica-
tions for how educators design training and development programmes for entrepre-
neurs, as well as for students. Programmes for entrepreneurs may need to become
increasingly peer-to-peer orientated as well as having stronger connections to the
entrepreneur’s ‘lived experience’. They must also draw on those who have credibility
in the entrepreneurial community of practice.

8. Conclusions
At the outset of this paper, Down (2010) described Cope’s work as the ‘opening of a
symphony’. Undoubtedly, Cope had much left to give to the academic community,
and in many areas plans were already on the drawing board. One was the
development of a concept he referred to as ‘focal commitment’, due to be considered
for publication by this journal. We hope this review has shown that Cope’s ideas in
the context of entrepreneurial learning were well developed and that he was close to
the conclusion of this symphony – his entrepreneurial learning framework – and
ready to begin the next.
856 L. Pittaway and R. Thorpe

In academia, the term ‘theory’ has to be carefully applied. We understand it to

mean a concept or concepts that describe and explain a phenomenon, and that can
be transferred, under defined parameters, to a range of contexts to explain social
reality. We contend that Cope’s work, while not a theory, is a useful conceptual
framework that contributes to our understanding of entrepreneurial learning. It
draws on a range of concepts relating to learning that together offer real insight into
how entrepreneurs learn. The framework, we believe, can be applied in multiple
contexts and offers an explanation for the three temporal phases of failure (Cope
2010) and two temporal phases of start-up (Cope 2005a) Cope proposed. It can also
be used for researchers to explore how entrepreneurship education can be more
effectively developed (Pittaway and Cope 2007a) and to assist in developing
educational designs for entrepreneurs (Pittaway et al. 2009). The framework also
describes aspects of social reality and entrepreneurial learning, offering additional
new perspectives. As Hamilton concluded in her eulogy to Cope, ‘Dr Jason Cope,
through work that he cared about enormously, leaves a powerful legacy, a
contribution to entrepreneurship that is held in the highest esteem and that will live
on through future generations of students and scholars’.

References

Appelbaum, S.H., and L. Goransson. 1997. Transformational and adaptive learning within
the learning organisation: A framework for research and application. The Learning
Organisation 4, no. 3: 115–28.
Argyris, C., and D.A. Schön. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Bateson, G. 1973. Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Burgoyne, J.G., and V.E. Hodgson. 1983. Natural learning and managerial action: A
phenomenological study in the field setting. Journal of Management Studies 20, no. 3:
387–99.
Cope, J. 2001. The entrepreneurial experience: Towards a dynamic learning perspective of
entrepreneurship. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lancaster.
Cope, J. 2003. Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection: Discontinuous events as
triggers for ‘higher-level’ learning. Management Learning 34, no. 4: 429–50.
Cope, J. 2005a. Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 29, no. 4: 373–97.
Cope, J. 2005b. Researching entrepreneurship through phenomenological inquiry:
Philosophical and methodological issues. International Small Business Journal 23,
no. 2: 159–83.
Cope, J. 2010. Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological
analysis. Journal of Business Venturing 26, no. 6: 604–23.
Cope, J., F. Cave, and S. Eccles. 2004. Attitudes of venture capital investors to entrepreneurs
with previous business failure. Venture Capital: An International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Finance 6, no. 2/3: 147–72.
Cope, J., S. Jack, and M.B. Rose. 2007. Social capital and entrepreneurship: An introduction.
International Small Business Journal 25, no. 3: 213–19.
Cope, J., S. Kempster, and K. Parry. 2011. Exploring distributed leadership in the small
business context. International Journal of Management Reviews 13, no. 3, 270–85.
Cope, J., and G. Watts. 2000. Learning by doing: An exploration of experience, critical
incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 6, no. 3: 104–24.
 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 857

Daudelin, M.W. 1996. Learning from experience through reflection. Organisational Dynamics
24, no. 3: 36–48.
Deakins, D., and M. Freel. 1998. Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs.
The Learning Organisation 5, no. 3: 144–55.
Devins, D., and J. Gold. 2000. Cracking the tough nuts: Mentoring and coaching the
managers of small firms. Career Development International 5, no. 4: 250–5.
Down, S. 2010. Dr Jason Cope (1972–2010) Obituary. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research 17, no. 1: 119–20.
Engeström, Y. 2001. Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work 14, no. 1: 133–56.
Fiol, C.M., and M.A. Lyles. 1985. Organisational learning. Academy of Management Review
10, no. 4: 803–13.
Gibb, A. 1997. Small firms’ training and competitiveness, building upon small business as a
learning organisation. International Small Business Journal 15, no. 3: 13–29.
Gold, J., D. Holman, and R. Thorpe. 2002. The role of argument analysis and storytelling in
facilitating critical thinking. Management Learning 33, no. 3: 371–88.
Gold, J., and R. Thorpe. 2010. Leadership and management development in small and medium
sized enterprises ‘SME worlds’. In Gower handbook of leadership and management
development, eds. J. Gold, R. Thorpe, and A. Mumford, 133–50. Aldershot: Gower.
Greiner, L.E. 1972. Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review
50, no. 4: 37–46.
Hamilton, E. 2004. Socially situated entrepreneurial learning in family business’. Proceedings
of the 27th ISBA National Small Firms Policy and Research Conference, November,
Newcastle.
Harrison, R.T., and C. Leitch. 2008. Entrepreneurial learning: Conceptual frameworks and
applications. London: Routledge.
Harvey, M., and R. Evans. 1995. Strategic windows in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of
Business Venturing 10: 331–47.
Holman, D., K. Pavlicka, and R. Thorpe. 1996. Rethinking Kolb’s theory of experiential
learning: The contribution of a social construction and activity theory. Management
Learning 25, no. 4: 489–504.
Holt, R. 2008. Phenomenology’. In The Sage dictionary of qualitative management research,
eds. R. Thorpe and R. Holt, 263–6. London: Sage.
Huber, G.P. 1991. Organisational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures.
Organization Science 2, no. 1: 88–115.
Jones, S. 1985. In-depth interviews. In Applied qualitative research, ed. R. Walker, 56–70.
Aldershot: Gower.
Jones, O., A. Macpherson, and R. Thorpe. 2010. Learning in owner-managed small firms:
Mediating artefacts and strategic space. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 22,
no. 7: 649–73.
Kempster, S., and J. Cope. 2010. Learning to lead in the entrepreneurial context. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 16, no. 1: 5–34.
Kleiner, A., and G. Roth. 1997. How to make experience your company’s best teacher.
Harvard Business Review 75, no. 5: 172–7.
Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leitch, C.M., and R.T. Harrison. 2005. Entrepreneurial learning: Researching the interface
between learning and the entrepreneurial context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
29, no. 2: 351–71.
Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.
Marsick, V.J., and K.E. Watkins. 1990. Informal and incidental learning in the workplace.
London: Routledge.
858 L. Pittaway and R. Thorpe

Megginson, D. 1996. Planned and emergent learning – consequences for development.

Management Learning 27, no. 4: 411–28.
Mezirow, J. 1990. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Minniti, M., and W. Bygrave. 2001. A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25, no. 3: 5–16.
Nicolini, D., and M.B. Mesnar. 1995. The social construction of organisational learning:
Conceptual and practical issues in the field. Human Relations 48, no. 7: 727–47.
Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Pittaway, L., and J. Cope. 2007a. Simulating entrepreneurial learning: Integrating
experiential and collaborative approaches to learning. Management Learning 38,
no. 2: 211–33.
Pittaway, L., and J. Cope. 2007b. Entrepreneurship education – a systematic review of the
evidence. International Small Business Journal 25, no. 5: 477–506.
Pittaway, L., C. Missing, N. Hudson, and D. Maragh. 2009. Entrepreneurial learning through
action: A case study of the six-squared program. Action Learning: Research and Practice
6, no. 3: 265–88.
Pittaway, L., E. Rodriguez-Falcon, O. Aiyegbayo, and A. King. 2011. The role of
entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning. International Small
Business Journal 29, no. 1: 37–57.
Rae, D. 2002. Entrepreneurial emergence: A narrative study of entrepreneurial learning in
independently owned media businesses. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation 3, no. 1: 53–9.
Rae, D., and M. Carswell. 2000. Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial
learning: The development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of
learning experiences. Education and Training 42, no. 4/5: 220–7.
Reuber, A.R., & E.M. Fischer. 1993. The learning experiences of entrepreneurs. In
Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, ed. N.C. Churchill, 234–45. Wellesley, MA:
Babson College.
Reuber, A.R., and E. Fischer. 1999. Understanding the consequences of founders’ experience’.
Journal of Small Business Management 37, no. 2: 30–45.
Reynolds, M. 1997. Towards a critical management pedagogy. In Management learning,
eds. J. Burgoyne and M. Reynold, 312–28. London: Sage.
Simon, H.A. 1956. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review
63: 129–38.
Stanworth, J., and C. Gray. 1991. Bolton 20 years on: The Small Firm in the 1990s. London:
Small Business Research Trust.
Stewart, J., and G. Beaver. 2004. HRD in small organizations: Research and practice. London:
Routledge.
Storey, D.J. 1994. Understanding the small business sector. London: International Thomson
Business Press.
Sullivan, R. 2000. Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 6, no. 3: 160–75.
Taylor, D.W., and R. Thorpe. 2000. The owner-manager – no isolated monad: Learning as a
process of co-participation. Proceedings of the 23rd ISBA National Small Firms
Conference, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.
Taylor, D.W., and R. Thorpe. 2004. Entrepreneurial learning: A process of co-participation.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 11, no. 2: 203–11.
Thompson, C.J., W.B. Locander, and H.R. Pollio. 1989. Putting consumer experience back
into consumer research: The philosophy and method of existential phenomenology.
Journal of Consumer Research 16, no. 2: 133–46.
Thomson, A., J. Storey, C. Mabey, C. Gray, E. Farmer, and R. Thomson. 1997. A portrait of
management development. London: Institute of Management/Open University.
 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 859

Thorpe, R., J. Cope, M. Ram, and M. Pedler. 2009. Leadership development in small and
medium-sized enterprises: The case for action learning. Action Learning: Research and
Practice 6, no. 3: 201–8.
Thorpe, R., A. Jones, A. Mapherson, and R. Holt. 2008. The evolution of business knowledge
in SMEs. In The evolution of business knowledge, ed. H. Scarborough, 23–50. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Trehan, K., and M. Pedler. 2010. Evaluation, impact and actionable knowledge: Assessing the
value? Action Learning: Research and Practice 7, no. 3: 237–8.
Watts, G., J. Cope, and M. Hulme. 1998. Ansoff’s matrix, pain and gain: Growth strategies
and adaptive learning among small food producers. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 4, no. 2: 101–11.
West, G.P., and E.V. Wilson. 1995. A simulation of strategic decision making in situational
stereotype conditions for entrepreneurial companies. Simulation and Gaming 26, no. 3:
307–27.
Wolfe, D.M., and D.A. Kolb. 1984. Career development, personal growth, and experiential
learning. In Organisational psychology: Readings on human behavior in
organisations. 4th ed., eds. I.M. Rubin, J.M. McIntyre, and D.A. Kolb, 128–33.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Young, J.E., and D.L. Sexton. 1997. Entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework.
Journal of Enterprising Culture 5, no. 3: 223–48.
Copyright of Entrepreneurship & Regional Development is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.