the national survey of entrepreneurship education an overview of
TRANSCRIPT
The National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education An Overview of 2012-2014 Survey Data
The George Washington University Center for Entrepreneurial Excellence
December 2, 2014
1
Table of Contents ABSTRACT: ......................................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION: ................................................................................................................................ 4
BACKGROUND LITERATURE:......................................................................................................... 6
Historical Context .............................................................................................................................. 6
Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship Courses ............................................................ 8
Differentiating Traditional Business Education from Entrepreneurship Education ........................... 8
Pedagogical Issues ........................................................................................................................... 10
METHODOLOGY: ............................................................................................................................. 13
RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS: .................................................................................................... 13
1. Overview of Programs in the United States ................................................................................. 13
Figure 1.1: Entrepreneurship Programs Offered .......................................................................... 14
Figure 1.2: Business Programs Offered ....................................................................................... 15
Figure 1.3: Mean Student Enrollment in Business Programs....................................................... 16
Figure 1.4: Courses Offered......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 1.5: Average Enrollment in Courses Offered ................................................................... 18
Figure 1.6: Faculty Hire in Entrepreneurship Program ................................................................ 19
Figure 1.7: Complimentary Entrepreneurship Resources & Initiatives ....................................... 20
Figure 1.8: Complimentary Entrepreneurship Resources & Initiatives ....................................... 21
Figure 1.9: Financial Support ...................................................................................................... 22
2. Pedagogy and Learning Materials................................................................................................ 22
Figure 2.1: Extracurricular Opportunities for Students................................................................ 23
Figure 2.2: Classroom Pedagogies............................................................................................... 24
Figure 2.3: Major Topics Covered in Curriculum........................................................................ 25
Figure 2.4: Common Teaching Materials .................................................................................... 26
Figure 2.5: Commonly Used Periodicals ..................................................................................... 27
Figure 2.6: Commonly Used Academic Journals......................................................................... 27
3. Social Entrepreneurship ............................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.1: Social Entrepreneurship Course Program Offerings.................................................. 29
4. Technology .................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 4.1: Utilizing Online Resources........................................................................................ 31
Figure 4.2: Social Media Use....................................................................................................... 32
5. External and International Components....................................................................................... 32
Figure 5.1: Social Media Use....................................................................................................... 33
2
Figure 5.2: External Partnerships................................................................................................. 33
6. Impact .......................................................................................................................................... 34
CONCLUSION: .................................................................................................................................. 35
REFERENCES: ..............................................................................................................................xxxviii
APPENDIX A: Full List of Free Response Answers...........................................................................xlii
Distinguishing Program Features.....................................................................................................xlii
Metrics ............................................................................................................................................ xliii
Predicted Trends in Entrepreneurship Education............................................................................ xliv
ABSTRACT:
This report summarizes the data collected from the 2012-2014 National Survey of
Entrepreneurship Education. It provides an analytical overview of the current state of
entrepreneurship education in the United States. Moreover, this report is based on the seventh
survey of entrepreneurship educators in the United States since 1979, with last run of the
survey covering the years 2004-2005, offering a snapshot of the current state of
entrepreneurship education in the United States while showing some trends and changes to
entrepreneurship education.
Scholars and researchers in entrepreneurship education in the United States have reported that
small business management and entrepreneurship courses at four-year college and university
levels have grown in both the number and diversity of course offerings from 1990-2014. This
expansion of educational offerings has been fueled, in part, by dissatisfaction with the
traditional Fortune 500 focus of business education voiced by students and accreditation
bodies (Solomon & Fernald, 1993).
Edelman, Brush and Manolova (2008) postulated that while current scholarship recognizes
the short comings of entrepreneurship education as it is currently practiced, to date little
research has adopted a content perspective and systematically compared what we are teaching
in the classroom to what entrepreneurs are doing when they start a new venture. The purpose
of this study is to begin collecting data on pedagogical and theoretical approaches to the
teaching of entrepreneurship education and small business management.
The National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education is the country's oldest and most
comprehensive surveys on small business management and entrepreneurship education dating
back to the initial survey conducted in 1979 by Dr. George T. Solomon, Co-Director of The
4
George Washington University Center for Entrepreneurial Excellence (CFEE), as part of his
doctoral studies.
This continuation of the National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education:
Expands on earlier studies by collecting data on credit and non-credit courses and
programs at both the undergraduate and graduate level in small business management
and entrepreneurial education offered at four-year colleges and universities in the
United States.
Examines pedagogies and innovative delivery mechanisms, such as virtual and
Internet based programs, and their effect on the upcoming generation of
entrepreneurs.
Captures information about Social Entrepreneurship, both current and projected
offering in the future, which enables an accurate assessment of current course
offerings of this unique subset of entrepreneurship education.
INTRODUCTION:
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation in collaboration with The George Washington
University Center for Entrepreneurial Excellence (CFEE) agreed to sponsor the 2012-2014
entrepreneurship education survey. The purpose was to update the 2002-2003 National
Survey of Entrepreneurship Education to ascertain the current landscape in entrepreneurship
education in the United Sates, collecting information about all entrepreneurship education
programs available by four-year colleges and universities. Using this data, the goal was to
gauge best practices and trends within the field of entrepreneurship education while providing
a foundation on which to develop entrepreneurship education programs across the United
States.
5
In examining the state of entrepreneurship education, it is helpful to define what we mean by
“entrepreneurship education.” Colton, (as cited by Garavan and O'Cinneide 1994, p. 4)
suggests the following:
The major objectives of enterprise education are to develop enterprising people and inculcate an attitude of self-reliance using appropriate learning processes. Entrepreneurship education and training programs are aimed at stimulating entrepreneurship, which may be defined as independent small business ownership or the development of opportunity-seeking managers within companies.
Shepherd and Douglas (1997) are rather more specific:
The essence of entrepreneurship is the ability to envision and chart a course for a new business venture by combining information from the functional disciplines and from the external environment in the context of the extraordinary uncertainty and ambiguity, which faces a new business venture. It manifests itself in creative strategies, innovative tactics, uncanny perception of trends and market mood changes, courageous leadership when the way forward is not obvious and so on. What we teach in our entrepreneurship classes should serve to instill and enhance these abilities.
Earlier data collected from the National Surveys of Entrepreneurship Education conducted
from 1979 to 2003 by Solomon (Solomon 1979, 1982, 1986, 1991, 1997, 2000 and 2003),
indicate that entrepreneurship and small business management courses have grown in
acceptance at an accelerated pace from 93 colleges and universities in 1979 to over 1,600 in
2004 and we see continued growth in these course offerings in the present study. In fact, most
colleges and universities are now more commonly listing not only courses but also major
fields of study in entrepreneurship and small business management.
Anecdotal data gleaned from discussions with scholars in the field tend to indicate that the
general acceptance of entrepreneurship and small business management may be linked to the
popular literature extolling the somewhat glamorous role of the entrepreneur and the
opportunities for younger people to select activities and new venture start-ups as a career
choice. Also, the rise in endowed chairs and centers has contributed to greater acceptance of
entrepreneurship education and small business by colleges and universities.
6
Finally, GEN X and Y students are exploring start-up efforts as viable career choices. These
students, more so than enlightened administrators and faculty, are driving the demand for
more course offering in their quest to create careers that make an impact in the world and
follow their individual passions.
BACKGROUND LITERATURE:
The following examination of the literature presents the historical context of entrepreneurial
education, a comparison between entrepreneurial education and traditional business education
and a review of the conceptual distinction between small business courses and
entrepreneurship courses.
Historical Context
Entrepreneurship education has experienced remarkable growth in the last half century.
Within fifty years the field has evolved from a single course offering to a diverse range of
educational opportunities available at more than 1500 colleges and universities around the
world (Charney & Libecap, 2000). The field’s earliest roots are traced to Japan in 1938 and
Shigeru Fujuii, Professor Emeritus at Kobe University who initiated the first efforts in
applied education in entrepreneurship (McMullen and Long, 1987). Courses in small business
management began to emerge in the 1940’s and in 1958. When Dwight Baumann, an
engineering professor at MIT, introduced what may have been the first course in
entrepreneurship in the United States (McMullen and Long, 1987).
The early prediction that “…the number of course offerings should increase at an expanding
rate over the next few years” (Vesper, 1985, p. 380) has held true almost thirty years later. In
1985, 253 colleges or universities offered courses in small business management or
entrepreneurship and in 1993, 441 entrepreneurship courses were available to interested
students (Vesper, 1993). By 1999, Foote reported student enrollment in entrepreneurship
7
classes at five top U.S. business schools increased 92 percent from 1996 to 1999 and the
number of entrepreneurship classes offered increased 74 percent. A recent estimate suggests
that entrepreneurship and small business education may now be offered in as many as 1200
post-secondary institutions in the United States alone (Solomon, 2001) with educational
experiences ranging from traditional course work to integrative curricula that include
marketing, finance, new product development and technology (Charney & Libecap, 2000).
This extraordinary proliferation of entrepreneurship education programs and courses has been
underway worldwide. The 28 published articles and chapters cited below are but a sampling
of the scholarly focus on the “revolution” that entrepreneurship education has introduced in
academic institutions. (Anslem, 1993, Blenker, P. Dreisler, P, Faergemann, Helle Meibom
and Kjeldsen, John. 2013, Brockhaus, 1993, Edelman, L., Manolova, T. and Brush, C. G.
2008, Carland & Carland, 1997, Carroll, 1993, Charney & Libecap, 2000,Donkels, 1991,
Garavan & O’Cinneide, Gibb, 1993, Hisrich, 1992, Katz, 2003, Katz & Green, 1996, Kuratko
2005, Meyer, 2001, Plaska & Welsch, 1990, Porter, 1994, Robinson & Hayes, 1991,
Shepherd & Douglas, 1997, Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S & Tarabishy, A. 2002, Solomon &
Winslow, 1998, Solomon, G. T. Weaver, K., M. & Fernald, L. W., Jr. 1994, Solomon &
Fernald, 1993, 1991, Vesper & Gartner 1997, Vesper, 1993).
The evolution from negligible to massive interest in entrepreneurship, presents significant
curricular and pedagogical challenges for administrators, professors, and other instructors in
institutions of higher education. In its purest form, “entrepreneurship” is the art and science
of creating a new venture and value for multiple constituencies (e.g., customers, employees,
and communities). The call was echoed in Venkataraman’s (1997) seminal paper on the
distinctive domain of entrepreneurship. At the core of entrepreneurship is the identification
and exploitation of opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman 2000), yet the majority of
entrepreneurship courses assume that the opportunity has been identified. However, we
8
define the “entrepreneur,” as the individual who takes on the risk and tasks of the creation of
the venture and value.
Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship Courses
Unlike many specialized business courses, courses in both small business management and
entrepreneurship focus on the total firm. These courses provide a breadth of creative
managerial skills and knowledge that is the “closest approach to the original concept of
professional management education offered at colleges and universities” (Zeithaml and Rice,
1987, p. 50). Both types of courses frequently provide students with opportunities to gain the
knowledge and skills needed to generate a business concept, determine its feasibility, launch
and operate a business, and develop exit strategies (Solomon, Weaver, and Fernald, Jr.,
1994). Although small business management and entrepreneurship courses are closely
related, there are also important conceptual differences between the two education types
(Zeithaml and Rice, 1987; Solomon and Fernald, Jr., 1993). Small business management
courses focus on achieving normal sales, profits and growth within an existing business. The
traditional objective of small business management programs is to provide students with
management know-how related to managing and operating small, post-startup companies
including “setting goals and objectives, leading, planning, organizing and controlling from a
small business perspective” (Solomon and Fernald, 1993, p.5). In contrast, entrepreneurship
education focuses on originating and developing new growth ventures (Guglielmino and
Klatt, 1993) with an emphasis on high profitability, rapid growth, and expedient exit
strategies (Solomon, et al., 1994).
Differentiating Traditional Business Education from Entrepreneurship Education
Although small business management and entrepreneurship courses have experienced
remarkable growth in the last several decades, there is consensus that the field is far from
maturity (Robinson and Hayes, 1991.) As the field evolves, discussion continues regarding
9
the field’s relevance, course content, pedagogy, and effectiveness measures (Solomon,
Weaver, and Fernald, Jr., 1994). Early discussions focused on the need for entrepreneurship
education and questioned whether entrepreneurship courses were not simply traditional
management courses with a new label (King, 2001). While there is general agreement that the
core management courses offered in traditional business programs are essential for success in
any business career, (Vesper and McMullan, 1987; Block and Stumpf, 1992), there are
fundamental differences between business principles applied to new ventures and those
applied to large corporations (Davis, Hills, and LaForge, 1985).
Unlike the functional “specialist” focus of traditional business programs such as accounting,
marketing or finance, entrepreneurial education requires a “generalists” approach that
integrates and combines a variety of functional skills and knowledge (Hills, 1988; Block and
Stumpf, 1992). Entrepreneurship education is also differentiated by stage of development, the
central problem of new ventures. "Traditional management education presents the functional
format as if it were equally applicable to ventures at all levels of development, from an idea
onward as though no differentiation by stage of development is required” (McMullan and
Long, 1987, p. 267). Courses and programs in entrepreneurship education must focus on
early lifecycle development challenges; particularly those related to startup (Vesper and
McMullan, 1987) such as opportunity recognition, market entry, protecting intellectual
property, the legal requirements of new businesses and severe resource constraints.
Educational content must also address the lack of specialized functional expertise, the ways
in which some organizational objectives differ from mature firms, and the finite time span
available to generate profits (Loucks, 1982; Hills, 1988).
A core objective of entrepreneurship education that differentiates it from typical business
education is “to generate more quickly a greater variety of different ideas for how to exploit a
business opportunity, and the ability to project a more extensive sequence of actions for
10
entering business…”(Vesper and McMullen, 1988, p. 9). Business entry is a fundamentally
different activity than managing a business (Gartner and Vesper, 1994); entrepreneurial
education must address the equivocal nature of business entry (Gartner, Bird, and Starr,
1992). To this end, entrepreneurial education must include skill-building courses in
negotiation, leadership, new product development, creative thinking and exposure to
technological innovation (McMullen and Long, 1987; Vesper and McMullen, 1988). Other
areas identified as important for entrepreneurial education include awareness of
entrepreneurial career options (Hills, 1988; Donckels, 1991); sources of venture capital
(Vesper and McMullan, 1988; Zeithaml and Rice, 1987); idea protection (Vesper and
McMullan, 1988); ambiguity tolerance (Ronstadt, 1987); the characteristics that define the
entrepreneurial personality (Hills, 1988; Scott and Twomey, 1988; Hood and Young, 1993)
and the challenges associated with each stage of venture development (McMullen and Long,
1987; Plaschka and Welsch, 1990).
The integrated nature, specific skills, and business lifecycle issues inherent in new ventures
differentiate entrepreneurial education from a traditional business education. An additional
comparison, within the context of entrepreneurial education, can be made between small
business management courses and entrepreneurship courses-a distinction not always
addressed in the literature (Zeithaml and Rice, 1987).
Pedagogical Issues
In addition to course content, educators are challenged with designing effective learning
opportunities for entrepreneurship students. Sexton and Upton (1987) suggested early on that
programs for entrepreneurship students should emphasize individual activities over group
activities, be relatively unstructured and present problems that require a “novel solution under
conditions of ambiguity and risk” (p. 12). Students must be prepared to thrive in the
“unstructured and uncertain nature of entrepreneurial environments” (Ronstadt, 1990, p.72).
11
Offering students opportunities to “experience” entrepreneurship and small business
management is a theme among many entrepreneurial education programs.
Among the most common elements in entrepreneurship courses continue to be venture plan
writing, case studies, readings and lectures by guest speakers and faculty (Gartner & Vesper,
1994). The typical elements of courses include class work, tests and a major project, which is
usually a consulting project (Carroll, 1993). Project based, experiential learning is
widespread in entrepreneurship education and may take a myriad of forms, such as the
development of business plans (Gartner & Vesper, 1994; Gorman et al., 1997); student
business start-ups (Truell et al., 1998); consultation with practicing entrepreneurs (Solomon
et al., 1994) and computer simulations (Brawer, 1997). Other popular activities include
interviews with entrepreneurs (Solomon, et al., 1994), environmental scans (Solomon, et al.,
1994), “live” cases (Gartner & Vesper, 1994). Student entrepreneurship clubs are also
widespread (Vesper & Gartner, 1994).
Pedagogy is also changing based on a broadening market interest in entrepreneurship
education. New interdisciplinary programs use faculty teams to develop programs for non-
business students, and there is a growing trend in courses specifically designed for art,
engineering and science students. Non-business students may require basic technology
laboratories that focus on internet-based feasibility research, developing effective audiovisual
pitch presentations and creating professionally formatted business plans. In addition to
courses focused on preparing the future entrepreneurs, instructional methodologies should
also be developed for those who manage entrepreneurs in organizations; potential resource
people (accountants, lawyers, consultants, etc.) used by entrepreneurs; and top managers who
must provide vision and leadership for corporations which must innovate in order to survive
(Block & Stumpf, 1992).
12
Neck and Greene (2011) state that entrepreneurship education pedagogies should emphasize
students to think and then to do. In order to do this, some educators tend to use cases and
simulations, but in a different way. Neck and Greene (2011) focus on the entrepreneur as the
protagonist, exploring not only the venture process but also the decision-making process.
Other educators are using the writing of narratives and scripts based on the Mitchell et al.
(2000) approach of arrangement, willingness, and ability to further the students’ under-
standing of how they process information about entrepreneurship. In reviewing the literature,
Neck and Greene (2011) saw a number of great approaches, exercises, and classes on the
search for opportunities, including Jim Fiet’s systematic search (Fiet and Patel 2006; Nixon et
al. 2006) and DeTienne and Chandler’s 2004 opportunity identification exercise.
In summary, Neck and Greene (2011) indicate that the entrepreneur world has clearly
informed us that there is no one type of entrepreneur. This means one of the challenges of the
cognitive world is to avoid the trap of the entrepreneur world and therefore be able to
recognize the richness of a diversity of cognitive approaches, again linked to a diversity of
entrepreneurial motivations and desired outcomes or definitions of success. At the same time,
with an over reliance on teaching entrepreneurship as a process, the process world appears
linear and predictable. Innovation is often absent because we teach and applaud the use of
existing business models often arguing that using proven models reduces the risk of failure.
The vast majority of our student’s plans are not based on a truly innovative product or
service. Even more absent is the innovation in business models. This leaves us in the position
of largely replicating existing forms of businesses and therefore, even existing kinds of
economies. The cognition world is growing in popularity because it recognizes the
importance of the mind and the dynamic approach to learning how to think entrepreneurially.
13
METHODOLOGY:
Created in 1979 by Dr. George Solomon, the survey features five key sections – background
information on the respondent and their respective institution; pedagogies, subject matter and
materials; technology trends in the industry; external components and partnerships; and
impact of the initiatives. Since 1979, Dr. Solomon has used the data to produce numerous
articles reporting on the dynamic rise of entrepreneurship education in the U.S.
In the latest call for responses, the survey received 206 completed surveys, all stemming from
four year universities and colleges across the country. Summarizing the survey data, this
report provides an outlook of the U.S. entrepreneurship education industry, trends, growing
movements, and new activities. This report can serve as an informational piece for
individuals already in the entrepreneurship education industry and can also provide
information to those interested in launching their own programs, courses or centers.
As a compliment to the following report, The George Washington University Center for
Entrepreneurial Excellence as developed a dynamic website to host this information. The
goal of the website is to present the research in an interactive methods, while also showcasing
additional resources such as a list of entrepreneurship programs in the United States and a
literature review of relevant, complimentary materials.
RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS:
1. Overview of Programs in the United States In general, the data indicates that there is more of a trend towards entrepreneurship education
within undergraduate programs over graduate level or higher programs. As Figure 1.1 shows,
the largest area within entrepreneurship education are undergraduate minors in
entrepreneurship, receiving a score of 93, followed by undergraduate majors and
concentrations, each receiving a score of 76.
14
Figure 1.1: Entrepreneurship Programs Offered
Within the graduate level programs, entrepreneurship is more represented within Masters of
Business Administration Programs as a Certificate. Additionally, we see a rise in
Entrepreneurship focused MBA programs while entrepreneurship certificates within graduate
programs, entrepreneurship masters of science programs and entrepreneurship PhD / DBA
programs remain slightly under-represented in the United States.
Comparing Figures 1.1 and 1.2, we can see some similarities in the trends between business
programs and entrepreneurship programs. In Figure 1.2, there is still a high focus on
undergraduate minor programs and a lower representation for Masters of Science, PhD/DBA
and Graduate Business Certificate programs. The two differences are the number of major
and concentration programs. Comparing entrepreneurship programs to business programs, the
number of business (score of 125) majors far out weights the score for undergraduate
entrepreneurship majors (score of 76). Additionally, the number of entrepreneurship
concentrations in entrepreneurship is higher, with a score of 67, compared to general business
concentrations, which received a score of 67.
15
Figure 1.2: Business Programs Offered
The level of student enrollment in the aforementioned business programs directly
corresponds with the number of programs offered and has shown similar outcomes to the
programs available in Figure 1.2. The large majority of students are enrolled in undergraduate
business majors, which the lowest enrollment occurs within PhD/DBA Programs, as depicted
in Figure 1.3 below:
16
Figure 1.3: Mean Student Enrollment in Business Programs
Comparing these results from our initial report from the 2011-12 National Entrepreneurship
Survey, we can conclude a decrease in enrollment in PhD/DBA programs throughout the
United States. In the previous report, graduate certificate programs had the lowest enrollment
by a small margin.
Figure 1.4 summarizes a variety of courses offered throughout programs in the United States.
From this chart, we can conclude that the top 5 courses throughout entrepreneurship
programs include:
Entrepreneurship
Business Planning
Entrepreneurial Finance
New Venture Creation
Innovation
The three courses that tend received the lowest scores include:
Franchising
17
Venture Capital
Small Business Financing
Figure 1.4: Courses Offered
For these same course offerings, we are able to compare the number of sections offered with
the number of students enrolled. This data is depicted in Figure 1.5. From this figure we can
see that the 5 most popular courses offered, the ones that received the highest enrollment
levels, include:
Technology
Entrepreneurship
Venture Capital
Business Planning
Creativity
The three courses that received the lowest enrollment numbers include:
Franchising
Family Business
Small Business Consulting
18
Figure 1.5: Average Enrollment in Courses Offered
Some of the courses listed as ‘other’ include:
Entrepreneurship in the Arts
Intellectual Property
E-Commerce
Commercialization
Business Strategy
Business Law
Under the other category, a very high number of individuals indicated social
entrepreneurship. Noticing this recent trend within entrepreneurship education to teach about
creating new ventures that are focused on social initiatives, new questions were added to the
survey to explore the trend in more details and are highlighted in a following section of this
report.
Figure 1.6 shows the average number of professors who teach entrepreneurship employed by
their respective colleges and universities. As the chart indicates, there are more full-time
faculty hired in the fall than part-time and the number of full- and part-time faculty hired in
19
the spring is the same, an average of 3 per program. The “Other” category included responses
community partners, contract positions, co-op teachers, doctorate students, Entrepreneurs-in-
Residence, and faculty from other departments.
Figure 1.6: Faculty Hire in Entrepreneurship Program
Figure 1.7 illustrates the average type of additional programs that a school could have within
their entrepreneurship program. As the chart shows, the most common programs include:
Entrepreneurship Centers or Institutions
Entrepreneur-in-Residence positions
Endowed Chairs of Entrepreneurship
Small Business Development Centers
Other initiatives being adapted throughout colleges and universities include:
Incubators
Family Business Centers
Fellows Programs
20
Figure 1.7: Complimentary Entrepreneurship Resources & Initiatives
Responsibility and oversight for the general entrepreneurship curriculum, as well as the
additional resources and initiatives outlined above, fall within the responsibility of many.
Figure 1.8 shows, on average, which departments generally house these programs. As
illustrated, programs are mostly likely to be housed within existing departments of the
university or college. These initiatives are less likely to be housed within a department that is
dedicated to small business or entrepreneurship. Also surprisingly, they are more likely to be
housed within an existing department than within the school of business within the college or
university. This shows the growth trend towards integrating entrepreneurship across various
disciplines within a school – a trend that will be explored again in the Impact section of the
report.
21
Figure 1.8: Complimentary Entrepreneurship Resources & Initiatives
The most common Existing Academic Department listed was management with 56 responses
followed by Business (either administration or management), with a score of 27. One of the
most common responses under the ‘Other’ category was the Provost Office.
To fund these courses, programs, and research initiatives, grants and donations are often
sought after through external sources. In Figure 1.9, we illustrate where the majority of this
funding comes from. As the chart outlines, 29% of survey respondents indicated that funding
came from alumni, 20% indicated that funding came from non-alumni entrepreneurs and 14%
indicated resources from the federal government. The other two resources listed, the two that
received the least number of responses at 9% and 3% are the Coleman Foundation and
Kauffman Foundation respectively. Other sources listed included private donors or
foundations, public agencies, other university divisions or individuals and grants.
22
Figure 1.9: Financial Support
2. Pedagogy and Learning Materials Through this section of the survey, we attempt to determine how entrepreneurship programs
are commonly designed to ensure student success and identify the various resources and
materials the faculty members bring into the classroom to support the academic curriculum.
The first topic we explore relates to the additional learning opportunities available to students
outside the classroom. Opportunities for student academic and professional growth are
expanding beyond the classroom and into other programs and events. Figure 2.1 outlines how
survey participants rated each extracurricular option. The most popular programs outside of
the classroom include business plan competitions, entrepreneurship clubs, distinguished
speaker series, and elevator pitch competitions.
23
Figure 2.1: Extracurricular Opportunities for Students
Since business plan competitions are a large part of entrepreneurial education, we wanted to
measure how many schools participated in competitions versus those who hosted them. Of
the 206 survey responded, 53% said that they participated in other business plan competitions
while only 38% indicated that they hosted a competition at their school.
In Figure 2.2, we measure the level of frequency in which faculty use various teaching
pedagogies in their entrepreneurship courses. In this particular chart, higher frequency of use
is depicted with a lower value. For example, “Discussions” are used most often and “Small
Business Institute (SBI)” least often. This is because respondents were asked to rank
frequency of use of a scale of 1-6, with 1 representing “very frequent”, 5 representing
“seldom”, and 6 representing “Non-Applicable (N/A).” As the figure shows, the six most
frequently used pedagogies are discussions, creation of business plans, in-class exercises,
lectures from small business owners and guest speakers. The five most infrequently used
24
include small business institute (SBI), twitter, blogging, computer simulations and counseling
programs.
Figure 2.2: Classroom Pedagogies
Some of the most common pedagogies listed in the ‘other’ category include interviews with
entrepreneurs, workshops off campus, business challenges, and mentorship opportunities.
To dive deeper into the curriculum of entrepreneurship education across the country,
respondents were asked to provide information regarding the various subjects covered in their
curriculum. Figure 2.3 illustrates the responses to this question, where survey participants
were asked to indicate whether or not one of the 7 major topics listed were included in their
entrepreneurship, small business management curriculum, neither or both.
The results show that all of the topics were included in the entrepreneurship curriculum more
than small business management and that they appeared more in both than in neither. The
topic that showed up most in the entrepreneurship curriculum is Psychology Traits and
Startup Characteristics and the topic that is covered the least is Sustainability. The topic
25
covered the most in small business management is marketing and the topic covered the least
is Psychology Traits and Startup Characteristics. Financing was the topic that was rated the
highest as being covered under both curriculum and sustainability was rated the highest for
being the topic that was not covered under either curriculum.
Figure 2.3: Major Topics Covered in Curriculum
Respondents were also asked to provide three additional major topics under an ‘other’
category. The most common topics included:
Business model canvas
Social entrepreneurship
Feasibility
Global
Ethics
Harvesting
Innovation
26
Lean start-up methods
To learn more about how faculty and educators are presenting information to students, we
asked them to specify which of none teaching materials they used most recently. The most
popular teaching materials included textbooks, websites, reading books, sets of readings and
text material, and trade books.
Figure 2.4: Common Teaching Materials
Figures 2.5 and 2.6 highlight the various periodicals and academic journals that survey
respondents indicated they most frequently use in the classroom. The most highly rated
periodicals include Entrepreneur, Inc., Fast Company, The Wall Street Journal and Business
Week. The most highly rated academic journals include Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,
Journal of Small Business Management, and the Journal of Business Venturing. Overall there
were more responses to the use of periodicals versus academic journals.
27
Figure 2.5: Commonly Used Periodicals
Figure 2.6: Commonly Used Academic Journals
3. Social Entrepreneurship One of the latest trends in entrepreneurship education and the start-up industry in general, is
the shift towards the creation of social enterprises and the goal of creating a business that
28
includes a double bottom line – both generate profit for shareholders and investors while also
adding value to society. Throughout the survey we have seen the entrance of social
entrepreneurship. When survey participants were asked to identify other major topics within
entrepreneurship and small business curriculum, social entrepreneurship was one of the most
commonly stated topics. Additionally, participants compared the enrollment levels versus the
number of courses offered in their curriculum, social entrepreneurship was also common as
part of their ‘other’ responses.
Seeing this trend first appear when our report for our 2011-12 data was generated, we decided
to incorporate more questions regarding the use of social entrepreneurship topics in the
curriculum. The following section outlines our results.
Starting out, we wanted to get a general sense of how schools were incorporating social
entrepreneurship into their curriculum. Of the respondents surveyed, 40% indicated that they
offer course(s) dedicated or specific to social entrepreneurship. Degree programs in social
entrepreneurship are now ranging from undergraduate majors to doctoral programs. Figure
3.1 highlights these results:
29
Figure 3.1: Social Entrepreneurship Course Program Offerings
The majority of the course offerings lie within undergraduate majors and minors and MBA
Programs.
For schools that did not begin introducing dedicated social entrepreneurship courses, we tried
to determine whether or not they had plans to do so in the future. We received the following
responses to general questions about their use of social entrepreneurship:
If not dedicated, do you cover the topic in your general entrepreneurship course(s)?
Yes = 61%
No = 39%
If not dedicated, are you in the process of developing?
Yes = 18%
No = 82%
Although the data indicates that schools still aren’t offering a dedicated social
entrepreneurship program, it does indicate that the majority are incorporating it into their
30
general entrepreneurship course work. We also asked individuals to tell us when their school
first starting offering social entrepreneurship courses and programs and the most common
year was 2010, the first year was 1978 and the most recent year was 2014.
4. Technology With rapidly evolving technology and the growth in online education, it is inevitable that we
will see more and more growth towards the use of new technologies in the field of
entrepreneurship education. Online courses are becoming more time- and cost-efficient for
the students and the schools that offer them. To determine the level of adaptation of online
resources by universities and colleges in entrepreneurship education, participants were asked
to indicate whether or not they used certain technologies listed. Figure 4.1 outlines the
responses to these questions and shows that the majority of individuals indicated that they
used web-based assignments in their entrepreneurship curriculum and posted information
regarding entrepreneurship and new venture creation. Although blogging seems to be a
growing trend, many businesses turning to the inexpensive medium to educate consumers on
their brand and industry, in entrepreneurship education it is not as prevalent. Only 25% of
respondents indicated that they blog regularly. Another infrequently used online resource is
delivering entrepreneurship courses online, with only 27% of respondents indicating that they
offer online courses. Considering the movement towards online education, we might expect
to see this increase in the coming years.
31
Figure 4.1: Utilizing Online Resources
With the growing use in social media, survey respondents were also asked to indicate which
medium they use most often. Figure 4.2 shows that Facebook is used most often, followed by
LinkedIn and Twitter. The least used media are Instagram and Pintrest and Google+.
32
Figure 4.2: Social Media Use
5. External and International Components To survey the offerings that U.S. schools provide outside of the classroom, survey
respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they offered any of the following
opportunities - internships, online learning, continuing education or executive development
courses. Figure 5.1 illustrates that a lot of respondents indicated that they offered internship
opportunities. It also confirms what we saw in Figure 4.1, that entrepreneurship education has
still not made a big move towards offering online courses, as this option was the lowest
ranked only behind executive development courses.
33
Figure 5.1: Social Media Use
Additionally, we wanted to measure how active programs were in communities outside of the
school. Figure 5.2 illustrates the results:
Figure 5.2: External Partnerships
34
From these results we can determine that the majority of schools participate in external
business plan competitions as their main form of developing external relationships. Another
highly rated figure was that the school as a whole supports the interdisciplinary program by
working together to help promote and highlight entrepreneurship as a viable career option.
6. Impact In order to assess the overall entrepreneurship education industry, survey respondents were
asked a variety of questions related to how they view the industry and where they feel that
their school fits into the ecosystem. The first question asked what distinguishes their
entrepreneurship program from those of other schools. The following were the top three
responses:
Experiential learning
Interdisciplinary programs
A resource network for students consisting of mentors, program partners, etc.
Please see Appendix A for a full list of distinguishing program features.
The third unique indicator mentioned above provided confirmation on the believe that
maintaining connections with alumni is an important part of a healthy program, not only to
turn to for donations and funding, but also to provide additional resources and an expanded
network for current students and faculty. However, the data indicated that schools do not put
a focus on maintaining these connections as only 43% of respondents indicated that they did
keep in touch with alumni who have started their own business.
In order to identify how well the program is performing, most schools implement metrics to
measure outcomes from individual courses and also the program as a whole. Survey
respondents were asked to identify the key metrics that they used and the following are the
four top responses:
Number of businesses started – both during and after the program
35
Student course evaluation results
Number of participants in programs and events held within the school
Number of students enrolled in the course or program
Please see Appendix A for a full list of identified metrics.
Furthermore, as it is predicted that online education and social entrepreneurship would both
become more integrated into the entrepreneurship curriculum, survey respondents were asked
to identify the top three trends they see in the industry. In ranking order, the top six trends
predicted to become prominent in entrepreneurship education over the next five years are:
1. Social Entrepreneurship
2. Experiential Education
3. Interdisciplinary Programs
4. Business Modeling
5. Lean Start-up
6. Globally focused programs
Please see Appendix A for a full list of predicted trends in entrepreneurship education.
CONCLUSION:
The National Entrepreneurship Education survey provides an overview of the state of the
entrepreneurship education landscape within the United States, giving an accurate picture of
how entrepreneurship programs are organized and implemented. The majority of
entrepreneurship programs fall within undergraduate programs, both minors and majors, and
Masters of Business Administration Programs. Most are housed within an existing
department of the school, usually within the business or management departments, and the
most common form of funding is from alumni, entrepreneurs and the federal government.
Additionally, within the programs, there is a shift in the course offerings, moving away from
more traditional topics of Franchising and Venture Capital, and towards topics such as New
Venture Initiatives, Business Planning, Technology, and Innovation.
36
Through the analysis, three trends have been identified, not only through the impact section
that asked survey respondents to identify upcoming industry trends, but also throughout
responses to other survey questions related to pedagogy and course offerings. These trends
include social entrepreneurship, experiential learning and incorporating business model
canvas activities into the curriculum.
The first trend, social entrepreneurship has been on the rise for a number of years. Seeing this
trend when creating the 2012-13 and 2013-14 surveys, questions specifically targeting social
entrepreneurship educational activities were added. The results concluded that 40% of
schools in the United States offer specific courses in social entrepreneurship and 61% teach it
in their core entrepreneurship courses.
Many survey respondents indicated that one of the features that provides their program with a
competitive advantage over others in the is their ability to offer experiential learning
opportunities to their students. Providing the opportunity for students to participate in real-
life situations and activities outside the program is the second trend identified through the
survey. Eager to apply their education outside of the classroom, students are looking to
educators to provide the opportunity to participate in internships and business plan
competitions and interact with professionals and entrepreneurs through resource networks.
Finally, the use of lean start-up and business model canvas models in programs and courses is
on the rise. These two subjects were identified not only in the industry trends section, but also
as additional topics offered under the course curriculum. As lean-start up strategies become
more widely used in the industry, more and more educators are bringing the models into the
classroom as a way to provide students with additional start-up strategies and analyze a new
venture’s potential environment.
37
A trend that seemed not as prominent is the use of online course offerings in entrepreneurship
education. Although the use of technology has been on the rise in terms of an increase in the
use of social media and web-based activities, compared to the rise in online course offerings
in general business programs, the number of respondents indicating that they used online
courses within their entrepreneurship program was low. This could be related back to the
desire to provide experiential learning opportunities to students and the difficulties in
providing those opportunities through an online course.
Another trend that was prominent within the analysis was the need for interdisciplinary
entrepreneurship programs. Although identified as being housed within business and
management departments largely, entrepreneurship impacts various subjects outside of the
business school. For example, many technologies and innovations come from engineering
schools and, in the wake of the rising concerns over health care in the country, Public Health
Schools are turning to entrepreneurial activities to creative innovative solutions. Integrating
these types of schools into the program not only provides exposure to the school housing the
program, but also a more hands on learning experience for students of the program, allowing
them to work outside of the business discipline and be a part of a team with diverse
backgrounds.
Finally, to further enhance the filed of entrepreneurship education it would be helpful to:
• generate a validated census of all schools who have either responded to any of the
National Surveys of Entrepreneurship education, surveys conducted by Karl Veser
and the Kauffman sponsored University of Illinois web survey.
• develop a successful strategy to collect data from two year colleges
• develop linkages with other entrepreneurship education databases such as Jerry Katz’s
listing of endowed centers and chairs.
REFERENCES: Amit, R., L. Glosten and E. Muller (1993). “Challenges to Theory Development in
Entrepreneurship Research,” Journal of Management Studies 30(5), 815–834.
Anselm, M. 1993. Entrepreneurship education in the community college. A paper presented at a meeting of the International Council for Small Business (ICSB), Las Vegas, NV. 177-192.
Blenker, P. Dreisler, P, Faergemann, Helle Meibom and Kjeldsen, John. 2013. A framework for developing entrepreneurship education in a university context, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Volume 5 #1,45-63
Block, Z. and Stumpf, S. A. (1992). Entrepreneurship education research: Experience and challenge. In D. L. Sexton and J. D. Kasarda, (Eds.) The state of the art of entrepreneurship, pp. 17-45. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing
Brawer F.B. 1998. Academic Entrepreneurship in Higher Education. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 98-3.1-3.
Brockhaus, R. (1993). Entrepreneurship education: A research agenda. The Art & Science of Entrepreneurship Education. F. Hoy, T. G. Monroy and J. Reichert. Berea, CA, Monroy Educational Systems, Inc. 1: 9-13.
Carland, J. W. and Carland, J. A. 1997. Entrepreneurship education: An integrated approach using an experiential learning paradigm. A paper presented at a meeting of the Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training, IntEnt97, Monterey Bay, CA.
Carroll, J. J. 1993. Course and curriculum design in developing and changing nations: Problems following the U.S. model. A paper presented at a meeting of the International Council for Small Business, Las Vegas, NV, 254-263.
Charney, A. & Libecap, G. 2000. Impact of Entrepreneurship Education. Insights: A Kauffman Research Series. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Davis, C., Hills, G. E. and LaForge, R. W. (1985). The marketing/small enterprise paradox: A research agenda. International Small Business Journal, 3, 31-42.
DeTienne, D., and G. Chandler (2004) “Opportunity Identification and Its Role in the Entrepreneurial Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach and Empirical Test,” Academy of Management Learning and Education 3(3), 242–257
Donckels, R. 1991. Education and entrepreneurship experiences from secondary and university education in Belgium. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 35-42.
Edelman, L., Manolova, T. and Brush, C. G. (2008) Entrepreneurship Education: Correspondence Between Practices of Nascent Entrepreneurs and Textbook Prescriptions for Success , Academy of Management Learning and Education vol. 7 no. 1 56-70
xxxix | P a g e
Garavan, T. N. and O'Cinneide, B. (1993). Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: A review and evaluation - Part 2. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(11): 13-22.
Gartner, W. B. and Vesper, K. H. (1994). Executive Forum: Experiments in entrepreneurship education: Successes and failures. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 179-187.
Gartner, W. B., Bird, B. J. and Starr, J. A. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(3), 13-32.
Gibb, A. 1993. The enterprise culture and education. International Small Business Journal, 11(3), pp. 11-34.
Guglielmino, P.J. and Klatt, L.A. (1993). Entrepreneurs as self-directed learners. Proceedings of the International Council for Small Business, Las Vegas, NV, 206-216.
Hills, G. E. (1988). Variations in university entrepreneurship education: An empirical study of an evolving field. Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 109-122.
Hisrich, R. D. 1992. Toward an organization model for entrepreneurship education. A paper presented at a meeting of the Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference, Dortmund, Germany.
Hood, J. N. and Young, J. E. (1993). Entrepreneurship’s requisite areas of development: A survey of top executives in successful entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 115-135.
Katz, J. A. and Green, R. P. II.1996. Academic resources for entrepreneurship education. Simulation & Gaming, 27(3): 365-374.
Katz, J.A. 2003. The Chronology and Intellectual Trajectory of American Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2) 283-300.
King, S. W. (2001). Entrepreneurship Education: What the Customer values. Proceedings of the 46th International Council for Small Business. Taipei. Taiwan.
Kuratko, D.F. 2005. “The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends, and Challenges,” Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29 (5): 577-598.
Loucks, E. L. (1982). Elaboration on education in entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, pp. 344-346. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McMullan, W. E. and Long, W.A. (1987). Entrepreneurship education in the nineties. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 261-275.
Meyer, G.D. 2001. Major Unresolved Issues and Opportunities in Entrepreneurship Education. A paper presented at a meeting of the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship National Conference
Neck, H.M. and Green, P.G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management 49(1), pp. 55–70.
xl | P a g e
Plaschka, G. R. and H. P. Welsch 1990. Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education: Curricular designs and strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3): 55-71.
Porter, L. W. 1994. The relation of entrepreneurship education to business education. Simulation & Gaming, 25(3): 416-419.
Robinson, P. & Hayes, M. 1991. Entrepreneurship education in America’s major universities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(3), 41-52.
Ronstadt, R. (1987). The educated entrepreneurs: A new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning. American Journal of Small Business, 11(4), 37-53.
Ronstadt, R. 1990. The educated entrepreneurs: A new era of entrepreneurial education evolves. In C.A. Kent (Ed.) Entrepreneurship Education. New York: Quorum Books, 69-88.
Scott, M. G. and Twomey, D. F. (1998). The long term supply of entrepreneurs: Student’s career aspirations in relation to entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(4), 5-13.
Sexton, D. L., & Upton, N. B. (1987). Evaluation of an innovative approach to teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 25(1), 35-43.
Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman (2000). “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research," Academy of Management Review 25(1), 217–227.
Shepherd, D. A. and Douglas, E.J. 1997. Is management education developing, or killing, the entrepreneurial spirit? A paper presented at a meeting of the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Solomon, G. T. (2001). Interview at The George Washington University School of Business and Public Management.
Solomon, G. T. 1988. Small Business Management and Entrepreneurial Education in America: A National Survey Overview. Journal of Private Enterprise, November, 1988. 109-118
Solomon, G. T. and Fernald, L. W., Jr. (1993). Assessing the need for small business management/entrepreneurship courses at the university level. Proceedings of the 17th National Small Business Consulting Conference-Small Business Institute Director’s Association, 102-107.
Solomon, G. T. Weaver, K., M. & Fernald, L. W., Jr. 1994. Pedagogical Methods of Teaching Entrepreneurship: An Historical Perspective. Gaming and Simulation, Volume 25 Number 3, 67-79
Solomon, G. T., & Fernald, L. W., Jr. 1991. Trends in small business management and entrepreneurship education in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(3), 25-40.
xli | P a g e
Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S & Tarabishy, A. 2002. The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1): 65-86.
Solomon, G. T., E. K. Winslow, et al. 1998. Entrepreneurial education in the United States: An empirical review of the past twenty years. A paper presented at a meeting of the International Council for Small Business (ICSB) Conference.
Truell, A.D., Webster, L. and Davidson, C. (1998), “Fostering entrepreneurial spirit: integrating the business community into the classroom”, Business Education Forum Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 28-9, 40.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). “The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research,” in Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth. Eds. G. T. Lumpkin and J. Katz. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 119–138.
Vesper, K. H. (1985). Entrepreneurship education 1985. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Vesper, K. H. (1986). New developments in entrepreneurship education. In D. L. Sexton & R.W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship, pp. 379-387. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger
Vesper, K. H. 1993. Content of entrepreneurship courses versus needs of entrepreneurs. A paper presented at a meeting of the Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference.
Vesper, K. H. and McMullan, W. E. (1987). Entrepreneurship education in the nineties. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 261-275.
Vesper, K. H.and Gartner, W. B.1997. Measuring Progress in Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, 403-421.
Vesper, K.H. and McMullan, W.E. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Today courses, tomorrow degrees? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(1), 7-13.
Zeithaml, C. P. and Rice, G. H. (1987). Entrepreneurship/small business education in American universities. Journal of Small Business Management, 25(1), 44-50.
xlii | P a g e
APPENDIX A: Full List of Free Response Answers
Distinguishing Program Features
Program Features # of Responses
Experiential Learning 28
Interdisciplinary Program 13
Resource Network - mentors, program partners, etc. 11
Focus on Social Entrepreneurship 5
Liberal Arts Focus 4
Internship Opportunities 4
Experienced Educators 4
Research Focus 3
Incubator spaces available 3
Funding Programs for Students 3
In-residence Programs 2
Global Focus 2
Family business focus 2
Consulting Projects 2
Commercialization focus 2
xliii | P a g e
Metrics
Metric # of Responses
Number of startups - during and after program 21
Student course evaluations 13
Number of participating in internal competitions and programs 11
Number of students enrolled 10
Student performance results on tests and projects 5
Participation level from mentors / alumni 4
Number of students participating in external competitions and programs 4
Amount of funding received for startups 4
Performance metrics of start-ups - revenues, jobs created 4
Pre- & Post-Program Surveys 4
Number of Business Plans Completed 3
Use of software systems 2
Number of students completed program 2
Program sponsorship levels 2
xliv | P a g e
Predicted Trends in Entrepreneurship Education
Trends # of Responses
Social Entrepreneurship 36
Experiential Education 23
Interdisciplinary programs 17
Business Modeling 11
Lean Start-Up 11
Global focus programs 10
Online Programs 9
Innovation / Creativity / Design Thinking 7
Increasing technology use 7
Social Media use 7
Encouraging student start-ups 6
Sustainability 6
Incubators in Universities 5
Effectuation 4
Crowd-funding 3
Mentoring Opportunities 3
Move away from business plan competitions 3
Case Studies 2
Economy / Community Impact 2
Intrapreneurship 2
Family business focus 2