article eee

7/30/2019 Article Eee

1/14

Graduate career-making andbusiness start-up: a literature

reviewGhulam Nabi, Rick Holden and Andreas Walmsley

Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this article is to provide a selective review of literature on thecareer-related decision-making processes in terms of the transition from student to business start-up,and the nature and influence of support and guidance.

Design/methodology/approach Primarily, a critical review of a range of recently publishedliterature (1995-2005) addressing the theoretical and practical aspects of the journey from student to

start-up. The literature is divided into sections: the graduate labour market: a state of flux; Conceptualand definitional issues; Career choice and decision-making; and Start-up training and support.

Findings The paper finds that despite an increasing body of theoretical and empirical literature oncareer choice in general and on the career choice to start-up a business in the form of intention models,there remains a lack of in-depth research on the stories, circumstances, contexts and complexities ofgraduates on their journey from student to business start-up. A transition from entrepreneurialintentions to actual start-up is often assumed but under-researched in terms of career development anddecision making processes. The nexus between training, support, intent and actual career choice tostart-up a business remains under-investigated.

Research limitations/implications Given that careers are made in a changing and complexcontext, simple relationships should not be expected. Hence, rather than focusing solely on certainaspects of the start-up process, research is needed that takes a more holistic approach.

Practical implications The study highlights the need for research that does justice to the

complexities of the decisions made in the process from student to start-up and by implication publicpolicy and practice in relation to formal intervention within this aspect of the graduate labour market.

Originality/value The paper lays the basis for a more nuanced understanding of the journey fromstudent to start-up of value to both researchers and policy makers.

Keywords Graduates, Career development, Self employed workers, Entrepreneurialism,United Kingdom

Paper type Literature review

IntroductionThe UK Government has recognised that enterprise is a vital contributor to the healthof the economy. It has expressed a commitment to make the UK the best place in theworld to start and grow a business as a key component of its drive towards an

enterprise culture (DTI, 1998; SBS, 2002, 2003). At the same time the graduate labourmarket is in a state of flux. No longer is higher education a sheltered pathway to a jobwithin a large corporation with a clear career path. A recent survey of 3,500 studentsacross four West Yorkshire universities revealed that nearly 50 per cent intended toenter self-employment within five years of graduation (Robertson et al., 2004).

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

This article is based on a larger report funded by the National Council for GraduateEntrepreneurship.

Graduatcareer-makin

37

Education Traini

Vol. 48 No. 5, 20

pp. 373-3

q Emerald Group Publishing Limi

0040-09

DOI 10.1108/004009106106770
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htmhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm


2/14

A win-win scenario begins to emerge. The UK is producing more graduates; moregraduates appear to aspire to a career in self/small business employment and both ofthese observations sit comfortably with Government expectations and aspirations foreconomic growth and prosperity. Yet, such a picture masks both untested assumptions

and considerable complexity. Critically, the career-related learning anddecision-making processes undertaken by students and graduates in respect ofstarting their own business are under-researched. Despite burgeoning quantitativedata on graduate start-up intent, research is required that goes beyond this intentstage.

This article seeks to provide an informed literature review of the field of workrelating to the career-related decision-making processes of graduates starting theirown business, and the transition from student to start-up. We draw upon a range ofpublished sources, including:

. research studies and informed opinion reported within UK and internationaljournals;

.

seminal books in the field of career-related choice and decision-making process;. reports, conference proceedings and scholarly work related to bodies working

with small businesses and graduate business start-ups; and

. grey literature.

The literature base is somewhat fragmented across the fields of psychology, sociology,entrepreneurship, education, small to medium-sized enterprises and wider labourmarket issues. In order to provide a useful context for the primary researchundertaken, we have sought to organise material into four main themes. First, weendeavour to assess critically the theme of graduate start-up within a changinggraduate labour market. Second, we address conceptual issues regarding graduateentrepreneurship. Third, we discuss career choice and decision-making and focus inparticular upon graduate career choice and decision-making in the context of businessstart-up. Finally, we address start-up training and support. Attention was paidprimarily to material from the last ten years. However, references of relevance prior tothat were also obtained and reviewed.

The graduate labour market: a state of fluxIn 1965, approximately 30,000 graduates entered the labour market. Some 40 yearslater, this is closer to 300,000. This pool of graduate labour is also more diverse incharacter (Perryman, 2003). The UK governments target of 50 per cent of young peopleto participate in higher education (HE) by 2010 indicates that the number of graduatesentering the labour market is set to continue. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the relationship

between HE and employment has become increasingly complex in the context of thisscenario. Demand from a relatively small number of large employers who havedominated the graduate labour market has continued to grow but as a proportion of thetotal number of employers moving into the market each year their share is declining(Holden and Jameson, 2002).

Research suggests an increasing proportion of graduates find employment in whatmight be called non-traditional graduate jobs (see, for example, Elias and Purcell,2003). Against this background, there is an emergent assumption that the small

ET48,5

374


3/14

business sector will absorb increasing numbers of graduates. Such a development sitscomfortably with current Government thinking. The engine of growth within the UKeconomy is perceived to be small and medium-sized enterprises (SBS, 2002). In terms ofspecific policy initiatives, while enterprise in higher education has been a feature since

the late 1980s, it is only in more recent years that initiatives have sought, overtly, toencourage more graduates to consider the option of a career within the small businesssector or through starting their own business (see, for example, Holden et al., 2002;ISBA Consortium, 2004). However, although there may now be a sharper focus uponsmall business and start-up, the sorts of initiatives introduced throughout the last twodecades have been characterised by two features. They are supply, rather than demandside oriented and secondly, they are underpinned by a discourse of skills.Transferable skills, key skills, core skills, generic skills, personal skills andemployability skills are all terms which been used along with capabilities and personalcompetencies. A number of the recently announced Centres for Excellence in Teachingand Learning, for example, aim to equip students with enterprising skills andentrepreneurial skills (see, for example, www.leedsmet.ac.uk/enterprise/centres.htm).

Despite evidence of public policy showing an increasing interest in how graduaterecruitment may provide an opportunity to build capability within the small firmsector, this has not been matched by initiatives to develop labour market intelligencewhich can guide and monitor such developments (Holden et al., 2002). Until recently,Government statistics have failed to provide information on the size of firm in terms ofa graduates first destination employment. It is difficult, therefore, to gauge the growthof graduate employment in small firms. A somewhat clearer picture is evident inrelation to self-employment. Labour Force Survey figures indicate a steady increase toin excess of 12 per cent (for both first degree and postgraduate degree students) (ONS,2005), although there are clearly definitional problems in equating self-employmentwith specifically business start-up. No figures exist in relation to Government

aspirations to grow the proportion of graduates who subsequently start up their ownbusiness. However, the statement by Government that Britain becomes the best placeto start and grow a business (SBS, 2002) and the establishment in 2005 of the NationalCouncil for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) (whose mission is to increase thenumber and sustainability of graduate start-ups) are both powerful indications of acommitment to graduate entrepreneurship and continuing efforts to encourage agreater proportion of graduates to consider such a career option.

Conceptual and definitional issuesAlthough research in the field of entrepreneurship has been ongoing since the 1960s,there is still no universally accepted definition of this term. There is a tendency for theterm entrepreneur to be equated with small business (Gibb, 1996). However, Kirby

(2004) argues powerfully that this is to over-simplify. Not all owner-managers areentrepreneurs, nor are all small businesses entrepreneurial and, not all large businessesun-enterprising (Kirby, 2004, p. 511). Certain definitions exclude any specific referenceto a small business context. For example, that from Timmons (1989, p. 1) definesentrepreneurship as the ability to create and build something from practicallynothing. It is initiating, doing, achieving, and building an enterprise or organisationrather than just watching analysing or describing one. It is the knack for sensing anopportunity where others see chaos contradiction and confusion. Elsewhere, though,

Graduatcareer-makin

37


4/14

albeit with variations of emphasis, definitions do tend to evolve around the notion thatstarting up or attempting to start up a business as representing an aspect ofentrepreneurship (European Commission, 2003; Henry et al., 2003; Reynolds et al.,2004). Henry et al. (2003, p. 30), for example, define an entrepreneur as someone who

sets up ands runs his/ her own business and an aspiring entrepreneur as someonewho hopes to do likewise.

There is a further debate around types of entrepreneurship, with several competingtypologies. For example, Reynolds et al. (2004) distinguish between opportunityentrepreneurship and necessity entrepreneurship. The former incorporatesindividuals who respond to pull factors, for example, a pull from a start-upopportunity and then exploit that opportunity. The latter incorporates individuals whorespond to push factors, for example, they pursue the self-employment route becausethey consider they have a lack of alternative options. There are also a range of othersimilar typologies drawing on the pull-push framework, but the key issue is thatwhilst they can provide useful academic distinctions, they do raise the question as tothe extent to which graduate entrepreneurs can be simply categorised into one group oranother. The complexity of factors driving graduate career decision making to pursuethe self-employment route may well mean that a relatively unique set of pull andpush factors are involved.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the lack of a uniform standardised definition ofentrepreneurship, enterprise education and training is characterised by similarconceptual ambiguity and uncertainty. Different types of entrepreneurshipprogrammes are evident. For example, programmes which focus on awareness andunderstanding of entrepreneurship, programmes designed to develop competencesthat lead to self-employment and programmes that focus upon small business survivaland growth. A consistent theme in the critical literature is the need to distinguishbetween entrepreneurship, enterprise and small business management education and

to differentiate each of these from traditional approaches to management education(Gibb, 1993, 1996; Gorman et al., 1997; Holden and Rodgers, 2005; Kirby, 2004).Specifically in relation to higher education, Kirby (2004), for example, asks areprogrammes seeking to develop enterprising graduates or entrepreneurial graduates?Holden and Rodgers (2005) develop this distinction and suggest that programmesseeking to develop enterprising graduates need to move beyond the tools andcapabilities for start-up which characterise many of the initial HE-initiated enterpriseprogrammes.

Career choice and decision makingThe aim of this section is to provide an overview of generic career choice anddevelopment theories that are relevant to graduate entrepreneurship, together with

literature focusing specifically on graduate entrepreneurship pertaining tocareer-making processes and support interventions.

Generic career theoriesA broad range of theories of career choice and development exist, primarily in thewider careers and psychological literature (see, for example, Arnold, 1997; Brown andBrooks, 2002; Greenhaus et al., 2000), yet these are often overlooked in theentrepreneurship literature. Recent reviews of the literature (Henry et al., 2003, for

ET48,5

376


5/14

example) fail to draw upon this literature. A synthesis of the wider careers literature,however, suggests at least two schools of thought that add value to the mainstreamentrepreneurship literature by focusing on career-related learning and decision-makingprocesses.

The first focuses on general development of careers over time and emphasises notonly the individual but also society as a variable in career choice. Thus, asVondracek (1990, p. 38) puts it, to study career development . . . means to study amoving target (the developing individual) within a changing and complex context.That is, career choice is part of a bigger picture in which the individual develops avocational self-concept in the context of different life roles (e.g. worker, homemaker,leisurite) and arenas (e.g. school, work, community) (Brown and Brooks, 1996).

Two major recent developmental theories are Savickass Career ConstructionTheory (Savickas, 2002) and Gottfredsons (2002) Theory of Circumscription,Compromise and Self Creation. Savickass (2002) theory is an extension of Superswork in 1953, on career choice and development. As such it places significant emphasison the self-concept and five career stages, each with their own goals as indicated bytheir names: growth, exploration, establishment, maintenance or management, anddecline. Three development tasks confront the individual at the exploration stage:crystallization, specification and actualization. Crystallization should develop theattitudes, beliefs and competencies needed to clarify a vocational self-concept.Specification involves specifying an occupational choice that requires that individualsexplore deeply, sifting through tentative preferences in preparation for declaring anoccupational choice. The third and final task of the exploration stage actualizing anoccupational choice requires that the individual realises a choice by converting itinto actions that make it a fact.

The exploration stage is considered critical in this theory because it focuses on howindividuals, particularly students, grow in readiness to make vocational choices. The

impetus for this so-called career maturity is psychosocial in nature in the form ofexpectations in the curriculum, from significant others, and the shift to work. Thus, thetheory focuses on career adaptation from education to work. Similarly, Gottfredson(2002) describes the process of career choice as beginning with circumscription. Thatis, rejection of unacceptable alternatives. When this process is complete, it leads toadjusting aspirations to accommodate an external reality, i.e. abandoning alternativesbecause of mismatch between, for example ability and job requirements. This school ofthought, and particularly the theories mentioned above, appears to be directly relatedto graduate entrepreneurship in terms of developmental processes. Furthermore, thenotions of career maturity and readiness are relevant to graduates in the process ofmaking decisions about the self-employment route.

The second school of thought is behaviourist-based. An example of this is

Krumboltz et al. (1976) social learning theory. The key issue here is that career-relateddecisions are based on social learning, and that choosing a particular career isinfluenced by positive and consistent reinforcement from observing significantoccupational role models (e.g. family), and being exposed to images related to a specificcareer (see Millward, 2005). Again it can be argued that this perspective is relevant tograduate career decision-making processes in terms of social learning during highereducation and from significant others who are likely to play an important role incontributing to their readiness to making vocational decisions.

Graduatcareer-makin

37


6/14


7/14

attractiveness of the proposed behaviour and subsumes likely intrinsic and extrinsicpersonal outcomes); subjective norms (i.e. perceived social expectations and pressuresfrom significant others (e.g. family, friends, colleagues) on the decision maker toperform that behaviour); and perceived behavioural control (i.e. perceived ability and

feasibility to execute a target behaviour and is based on self-efficacy, past experiencesand future barriers) (see Henry et al., 2003). The TPB model has also been used toanalyze factors related to entrepreneurial intent among university students fromFinland, Sweden and the USA (Autio et al., 2001) and all components of the model werefound to be predictors of entrepreneurial intent, with perceived behavioural control thestrongest predictor. In other words, the underlying elements of behavioural controlperceptions, for example, perceived ability, self-confidence and self-efficacy, werestrongly and positively related to career-related intentions to start up a businessamong university students.

Shaperos (1982, see Krueger et al., 2000) model is similar to that of Ajzen. Shaperosmodel incorporates three components that influence entrepreneurial intentions. Theseare perceived desirability (perceived attractiveness of starting up a business),perceived feasibility (perception of personally capability in starting up a business) anda propensity to act (willingness to act on decisions). This latter component is the maindifference between the SEE model and the TPB model. Shaperos model suggests astate of inertia guides human behaviour until an event displaces that inertia. This maybe either negative (e.g. job loss, frustration or dissatisfaction) or positive (e.g. abusiness opportunity, entrepreneurial influence in the workplace), and this leads to achange in behaviour and the decision maker searchers for the best availableopportunity[3]. The career choices here then depend on the credibility of alternativebehaviours (vis-a-vis desirability and feasibility) and the propensity to act (otherwisethe individual will not take any action). Thus, Shapero sees start-up as requiring theindividual to have both the potential to start up a business (in terms of credibility and

propensity) before the displacement occurs, and the disposition to act afterwards.Krueger (1993) tested Shaperos (1982) model on 126 university business students

approaching career decisions. The results confirmed the importance of the threeabove-mentioned components of Shaperos model. Another recent study usingShaperos model (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003, p. 141) to evaluate the impact of anenterprise education programme concludes that the research provides empiricalevidence to support the inclusion of an additional exogenous variable in intentionmodels, namely exposure to entrepreneurship or enterprise education i.e. theprogramme had significant impact on perceived feasibility and desirability. Propensityto act was not tested.

Krueger etal. (2000) compared both TPB and SEE models in a study, using universitybusiness students who were facing imminent career decisions. The comparison was via

regression analysis. The study, although indicating a slightly higher explanatory valuefor the SEE model and also showing significant relationships between all components ofthe model and entrepreneurial intent, as opposed to TPB, nonetheless highlighted theusefulness of both models in understanding entrepreneurial intentions. Furthermore,meta-analyses (Kim and Hunter, 1993; Krueger et al., 2000) suggest that intentionspredict behaviour and attitudes predict intentions across a wide range of behaviours andthe intentions to engage in those behaviours. It is thus extrapolated that this appliesacross all behaviours. On this basis, it is often suggested that entrepreneurial intentions

Graduatcareer-makin

379


8/14

will translate to entrepreneurial behaviour and more specifically to a career choice tostart up a business (Henry et al., 2003).

Recent researchers studying university students (Autio et al., 2001; Henry et al.,2003) have developed more integrated models, merging Ajzens and Shaperos models

together, and extending them to include other factors. This, for example, includespersonal background variables like age, gender, experience, perceived image ofentrepreneurship, perceived benefits, entrepreneurial conviction (merging Shaperosand Ajzens conceptualisations), perceived university support and entrepreneurial/start-up intent. Such integrated models may be more beneficial than single models inyielding insight into the complex range of factors influencing start-up intentions andstart-ups amongst graduates.

There are, however, known and well-recognised barriers to a graduate pursuing acareer in self-employment. These may be related to any of the components ofentrepreneurial intent models like: perceived desirability (for example, poor image orlack of personal desire): perceived feasibility (for example, lack of finance, skills orself-efficacy); or propensity to act on decisions (for example, a lack of self-efficacy tofollow through and start up a business) (see Henry et al., 2003; ISBA Consortium, 2004).Thus, a wide and complex range of factors influence graduate start-up intentions andcareer decision processes.

Although intention models are useful in understanding graduate start-up andcareer-making processes in terms of theoretical and practical implications, they do notcome without limitations. The first limitation is the use of single-item or limited-itemmeasures of key constructs (Autio et al., 2001; Krueger et al., 2000; Peterman andKennedy, 2003). This is likely to be tied into the methodology of many of these studies,that is, the reliance on questionnaire measures. Although such studies provide someinsights, they tend to lack sophistication in assessing the career-making and start-upprocesses of the decision maker in terms of the individual story, circumstances,

contexts and complexities.Second, Krueger et al. (2000) and Autio et al. (2001) both had difficulty establishing

significant relationships between subjective norms and university student start-upintentions, although life histories and social expectations from family and significantothers often play a fundamental role in career decisions in both intention models (e.g.subjective norms in Ajzens model and perceived desirability in Shaperos model) andother models (Katz, 1992; Hodkinson and Sparkes, 1997). Again, the reliance on simplequestionnaire measures may have proved unsatisfactory in assessing the role ofsignificant others in highly individualised career-making processes.

Third, there is the question of the extent to which analysing start-up intentionsactually translates to a career choice to start up a business. Importantly, there is anassumption that university student start-up intentions actually translate to graduate

start-up. There is a lack of qualitative research addressing in-depth life stories and theassociated complexities, issues and processes involved in the transition for graduatesthat actually start up a business. Galloway and Brown (2002), for example,acknowledge that the results of their intent study are limited, precisely because oftheir reliance on what students said they were likely to do in the future. They point tothe importance of seeking to evaluate the impact of enterprise education and trainingon the quality of subsequent start-up; a potentially much more valuable field ofenquiry.

ET48,5

380


9/14

Start-up training and supportFrom a practical perspective, intention models suggest that it is important to addressdesirability, feasibility and propensity to act so as to influence career-related intentionsto start up a business and to carry this intention through to action. The conclusion

from Autio et al. (1997) is that start-up intent amongst university students is related tothe image of entrepreneurship as a career choice alternative, the perceived level ofuniversity training and support, and the use of successful entrepreneurial role models.This research combined with other research on social learning (e.g. role models) anddemographics (e.g. family involvement in start-up), suggests a range of support andresources are likely to influence graduate start-up decision processes by virtue of theirinfluence on entrepreneurial intentions in terms of perceived attractiveness, perceivedfeasibility and self-efficacy, and propensity to act.

Specifically in terms of graduate start-up support, the NCGE report few usefulstudies within a UK context which explicitly compare and contrast the types ofsupport used by graduates engaging with entrepreneurial activities (ISBAConsortium, 2004, p. 54). There is a lack, they suggest, of comparative studiesrelating to advice and consultancy, business support, and financial support, forgraduate entrepreneurs. An exception is Tackey and Perryman (1999) who suggest, fortheir research, that graduates rely on a variety of sources for support and business,both within and outside the university and that they value the informal more than theformal. A somewhat similar picture is evident in relation to the wider issue ofenterprise education and training. Hannon et al. (2005, p. 12), argue that current supplyreveals confusion about the purposes and impact of entrepreneurship education,whilst the NCGE acknowledge that entrepreneurship education and training ischaracterised by ambiguity and uncertainty about what and how enterprise should betaught. Again, exceptions do exist. Henry et al. (2003), on the basis of a rigorous studytracking the progress, post-programme, of 35 aspiring entrepreneurs over a three-year

period, conclude that such programmes can be effective and yield significant benefitsfor aspiring entrepreneurs. It is the use of control groups and longitudinal designs, theysuggest, which ensures a level and quality of evaluation that can offer a realcontribution to policy development.

Summary and conclusionsDespite an increasing body of theoretical literature on career choice in general and alarge body of empirical literature on the career choice to start up a business in the formof intention models, there remains a lack of in-depth qualitative research on the stories,circumstances, contexts and complexities of graduates on their journey from student tobusiness start-up. Moreover, a transition from entrepreneurial intentions to actualstart-up is often assumed in the literature, but under-researched in terms of career

development and decision-making processes.Whilst the broader careers literature suggests the importance of investigating

career as a developmental process and as a socially learned experience,entrepreneurship research places more emphasis on a range of personality,demographic and behavioural factors, combined with the importance ofcareer-related intentions and the processes leading to these intentions, e.g.desirability, feasibility and propensity to act. Taken together, these theoreticalperspectives add value to our understanding of graduate career choices to start up a

Graduatcareer-makin

38


10/14

business and provide opportunities to think about the nature and potential influence ofsupport interventions. It is clear from the literature that graduate career choices arehighly complex, contextualised and diverse processes that entail elements of varioustheoretical perspectives and that no universally accepted general theory exists.

Whether one should be expected is more questionable.Some effort has been afforded in the literature to the impact of entrepreneurial

training and support on entrepreneurial intent. However, the nexus between training,support, intent and actual career choice to start up a business remainsunder-investigated. Given the complexity of career decision processes a simplerelationship should not be expected. Hence, rather than focusing solely on certainaspects of the start-up process, research is needed that takes a more holistic approach.Rotefoss and Kolvereid (2005), for example, argue for research that looks atinteractions between human and environmental resources. Also, Segal et al. (2005)suggest in-depth research is needed that provides rich explanatory information whichwill add value to survey data. Rae (2002) too, in contrast to the bulk of survey-based

research undertaken in the field, attempts to understand the experiences of fourindependently owned businesses in all their complexity. A similar approach is takenby McMullan and Vesper (2000) who use a single case to demonstrate the process ofchange entrepreneurship education had on an individual. Critically, they argue thatcase studies can provide educators with a more complete understanding of the efficacyof interventions.

This paper has highlighted the complexity of the decisions made in the process fromstudent to start-up. There is evidently a need for more focused research which does

justice to this complexity. Critically, there is a need to map the journey over a longishperiod (at least three/four years) to complement the very static entrepreneurial intentresearch. A more nuanced understanding of the career-making process in the journeyfrom student to start-up/self-employment is required. Without this, public policy in

relation to interventions, whether principally within HE (and pre-graduation) orexternally based (and post-graduation), to enhance this key aspect of the graduatelabour market, will essentially be running blind.

Notes

1. We reviewed two dominant perspectives in the careers literature relevant to graduatecareer-making and the self-employment route. Yet, it should be acknowledged that there area wide range of theories and variations of theories that are beyond the scope of this research(see for example, Brown and Brooks, 1996).

2. This concept has been expressed in various guises, e.g. entrepreneurial potential (Krueger,

1993) and entrepreneurial conviction (see Henry et al., 2003).3. In a similar vein, various researchers suggest that a number of negative push and positive

pull factors influence the career choice to start-up a business. Examples of negative factorsthat push individuals into starting-up include: lack of job security in other SMEs/largeorganisations, lack of employment or development opportunities. Examples of positive ormotivating factors that pull individuals into starting-up include the wanting to be onesown boss, the need for independence, the need to achieve, wealth or the advent of newtechnologies, e.g. e-businesses (see Gilad and Levine, 1986; ISBA Consortium, 2004;McClelland et al., 2005; Segal et al., 2005 for more detailed reviews).

ET48,5

382


11/14

References

Ajzen, I. (1987), Attitudes, traits and actions: dispositional prediction of behaviour in personalityand social psychology, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 1-63.

Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behaviour, Organizational Behaviour and Human

Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.

Arnold, J. (1997), Managing Careers into the 21st Century, Paul Chapman Publishing, London.

Autio, E., Yli-Renko, H. and Salonen, A. (1997), International growth of young technology basedfirms: a resource-based network model, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 5 No. 1,pp. 57-73.

Autio, E., Keeley, R., Klofsten, M., Parker, G. and Hay, M. (2001), Entrepreneurial intent amongstudents in Scandinavia and in the USA, Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies,Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 145-60.

Brown, D. and Brooks, L. (1996), Career Choice and Development, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco, CA.

Brown, D. and Brooks, L. (2002), Career Choice and Development, 4th ed., Jossey-Bass, San

Francisco, CA.Carter, S. and Collinson, E. (1999), Entrepreneurship education: alumni perceptions of the role of

higher education institutions, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 229-40.

Davidsson, O. (1991), Continued entrepreneurship: ability, need and opportunity asdeterminants of small firm growth, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6, pp. 405-29.

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (1998), Our Competitive Future: Building the KnowledgeDriven Economy, DTI, London, White Paper.

Elias, P. and Purcell, K. (2003), On higher ground,People Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 24-31.

European Commission (2003), Green Paper: Entrepreneurship in Europe: COM 27 Final,European Commission, Brussels.

Galloway, L. and Brown, W. (2002), Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in thecreation of high growth firms, Education Training, Vol. 44 Nos 8/9, pp. 398-405.

Gibb, A. (1987), Education for enterprise: training for small business initiation - some contrasts,Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 42-7.

Gibb, A. (1993), Enterprise culture and education: understanding enterprise culture and its linkwith small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals, International Small

Business Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 11-34.

Gibb, A. (1996), Entrepreneurship and small business management: can we afford to neglectthem in the 21st century business school?, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 4,pp. 309-24.

Gilad, B. and Levine, P. (1986), A behavioral model of entrepreneurial supply, Journal of SmallBusiness Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 45-53.

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), Some research perspectives on entrepreneurshipeducation, enterprise education and education for small business management,

International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 56-77.

Gottfredson, L.S. (2002), Gottfredsons theory of circumscription, compromise, andself-creation, in Brown, D. (Ed.), Career Choice and Development, 4th ed., Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA, pp. 85-148.

Greenhaus, J.H., Callanan, G.A. and Godshalk, V.M. (2000), Career Management, 3rd ed., TheDryden Press, Orlando, FL.

Graduatcareer-makin

38


12/14

Hannon, P.D., Collins, L.A. and Smith, A.J. (2005), Exploring graduate entrepreneurship:

a collaborative co-learning based approach for student entrepreneurs and educators,

Industry & Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 11-24.

Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2003), Entrepreneurship Education and Training, Ashgate,

Aldershot.

Hodkinson, P. and Sparkes, A. (1997), Careership: a sociological theory of career

decision-making, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 29-44.

Holden, R., Jameson, S. and Parsons, D.J. (2002), Making a Difference The Contribution ofGraduates to Small Business Success, Small Business Service report, URN 03/868, SBS,London.

Holden, R.J. and Jameson, S. (2002), Employing graduates in SMEs: towards a research

agenda, Journal of Small Business an Enterprise Development, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 271-84.

Holden, R.J. and Rodgers, H. (2005), West Yorkshire graduate start-up: an evaluation report to

Business Start-Up@LeedsMet, unpublished research report, Leeds Metropolitan

University, Leeds.

Hynes, L.B. (1996), Entrepreneurship education and training: introducing entrepreneurship in tonon-business disciplines,Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 10-17.

ISBA Consortium (2004), Making the Journey From Student to Entrepreneur: A Review of theExisting Research into Graduate Entrepreneurship, Research Paper No. 001, NationalCouncil for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE), Birmingham.

Katz, J. (1992), A psychosocial cognitive model of employment status choice, Entrepreneurship:Theory & Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 29-37.

Kim, M.S. and Hunter, J.E. (1993), Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions and

behavior. A meta-analysis of past research, part 2, Communication Research, Vol.20 No. 3,pp. 331-64.

Kirby, D. (2004), Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?,

Education Training, Vol. 46 Nos 8/9, pp. 510-9.Krueger, N. (1993), The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture

feasibility and desirability, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Krueger, N.F. Jr, Reilly, M.D.R. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), Competing models of entrepreneurial

intentions, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, pp. 411-32.

Krumboltz, J., Mitchell, A. and Jones, G. (1976), A social learning theory of career selection, TheCounseling Psychologist, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 71-81.

McClelland, E.J., Swail, J., Bell, J. and Ibbotson, P. (2005), Following the pathway of female

entrepreneurs, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11No. 2, pp. 84-107.

McMullan, W.E. and Vesper, K.H. (2000), Becoming an entrepreneur: a participants

perspective, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 33-44.Millward, L. (2005), Understanding Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Sage, London.

Office of National Statistics (ONS) (2005), Labour Market Quarterly Report, December 2004 toFebruary, ONS, London.

Perryman, S. (2003), Annual Graduate Review 2003 Update: Business as Usual? Trends inStudent and Graduate Numbers, IES Report 399, IES, Brighton.

Peterman, N. and Kennedy, J. (2003), Enterprise education: influencing students perceptions of

entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129-35.

ET48,5

384


13/14

Rae, D. (2002), Entrepreneurial emergence: a narrative study of entrepreneurial learning inindependently owned media businesses, Entrepreneurship and innovation, Vol. 3 No. 1,pp. 53-9.

Reynolds, P., Bygrave, W.D. and Autio, E. (2004), GEM 2003 Global Report, Babson

College/London Business School, London.Robertson, M., Price, A. and Wilkinson, D. (2004), West Yorkshire Universities Graduate Start-up

Partnership: Student Entrepreneurial Intentions Survey 2004 An Analysis of 2003-04Student Entrepreneurial Intentions Survey Conducted at Leeds Metropolitan Universities,the University of Leeds, the University of Huddersfield and the University of Bradford by

Business Start-Up @Leeds Met for Yorkshire Forward, Yorkshire Forward, Leeds.

Rotefoss, B. and Kolvereid, L. (2005), Aspiring nascent and fledgling entrepreneurship: aninvestigation of the business start-up process, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 109-27.

Savickas, M.L. (2002), Career construction: a developmental theory of vocational behaviour, inBrown, D. and Brook, L. (Eds), Career Choice and Development, 4th ed., San Francisco, CA,Jossey-Bass, pp. 149-205.

Segal, G., Borgia, D. and Schoenfeld, J. (2005), The motivation to become an entrepreneur,International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 42-57.

Shapero, A. (1982), Social dimensions of entrepreneurship, in Kent, C., Sexton, D. and Vesper,K. (Eds), The Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 24, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ, pp. 72-90.

Small Business Service (SBS) (2002), Small Business and Government The Way Forward, SBS,London.

Small Business Service (SBS) (2003), Building an Enterprise Culture, SBS, London.

Tackey, N.D. and Perryman, S. (1999), Graduates Mean Business: A Study of GraduateSelf-employment and Business Start-ups, Institute for Employment Studies (IES) Report357, IES, Brighton.

Timmons, J.A. (1989), The Entrepreneurial Mind, Brick House Publishing, Andover.Tkachev, A. and Kolvereid, L. (1999), Self-employment intentions among Russian students,

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 269-79.

Vondracek, F. (1990), A developmental-contextual approach to career development research, inYoung, R. and Borgen, W. (Eds), Methodological Approaches to the Study of Career,Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 37-56.

Corresponding authorGhulam Nabi can be contacted at: [email protected]

Graduatcareer-makin

38

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


14/14

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

article eee

Documents