Entrepreneurship Education: Comparative Study of Initiatives of two Partner Universities

Abstract

The education of entrepreneurship is considered the most effective method to stimulate entrepreneurship within a society (Aaltio & Eskelinen, 2016); hence, creating jobs and encouraging economic growth (Lackéus, 2015). There are nevertheless structural difficulties in teaching entrepreneurship (Yang, 2016), and institutions are often left with the question: ‘learning-by-doing-what?’ This is particularly worrisome for partner universities who are supposed to collaborate to benefit the student. This study examines which initiatives two partner universities have integrated regarding the concept of entrepreneurship education, and to what extent these initiatives are in accordance with the already established literature. The analysis of the results from the qualitative data gathered through interviews shows that both universities lack certain important aspects of entrepreneurship education in their current offerings. It was found that University A seems to lack cohesion between the different faculties, has not integrated a global approach, has weak links with SMEs and social impact companies, and offers experiential-based learning mainly with in-class activities. University B, on the other hand, shows an improper use of terminology regarding the concept of entrepreneurship, lacks the collaboration with large corporations and social impact companies, and has a short-term approach for its programs as opposed to the more effective long-term approach. In addition, both universities fail to widely integrate entrepreneurship across the university. The research shows that there is no generally accepted understanding of how universities should structure their entrepreneurial environment. This study aims at discovering and contrasting the current initiatives to stimulate entrepreneurship at university level by comparing two partner universities in the United Kingdom and The Netherlands.

Keywords

• entrepreneurial education
• institutions
• qualitative technique