Entrepreneurship education and the role of universities in entrepreneurship

Importance of entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship has been increasingly recognized for its role in creating jobs and economic growth and in increasing the competitiveness of a region, state or country (European Commission, 2006; Zahra, 1991). Governments around the world are keen to embrace entrepreneurship to grasp these benefits as a response to increased economic uncertainty and the reduction of trade barriers resulting in increased global competition (Henry et al., 2005).

Entrepreneurship is also linked with more personal and social outcomes. For instance, it may unlock personal potential, assist societal interests and contribute to an increase in wealth for the poor (Gallup Organisation, 2007; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2006).

At a business level, mergers, downsizing, joint ventures, deregulation and privatization, among other things, have created the need for a flexible and reactive workforce (Henry et al., 2005). Moreover, industry is being squeezed by shorter product life cycles that force organizations to become more innovative. For these reasons, coupled with an ever-changing environment, entrepreneurship has been increasingly recognized as a skill and knowledge set required by all (Reynolds et al., 2002).

The employability of graduates has been defined as a crucial goal of the European higher education area (Asderaki, 2009; European Commission, 2006), with entrepreneurship skills and knowledge recognized as essential to employability as well as self-employment. Entrepreneurship is thus identified as a career opportunity, with new venture creation at the same time expanding the job possibilities of the population (European Commission, 2003) and opportunities for personal freedom (BMWi, 2012).

Especially in times of financial crisis, entrepreneurship is one way to avoid unemployment or work-related frustration while supporting personal development and offering a means of self-fulfilment (European Commission, 2003).

For such growth in entrepreneurship to happen, students need to have their interest stimulated in entrepreneurial topics, and it rests with governments and higher education institutions to arouse such interest and awareness (Schulte, 2006).

The role of universities in entrepreneurship development

The development of entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as part of a university’s role (Gallup Organisation, 2007; GEM, 2008, 2009). It is executed by academics in the form of academic entrepreneurship (Etzkowitz, 2001) and by students in the form of student or graduate entrepreneurship (Nabi and Holden, 2008), while acting entrepreneurially is increasingly required of all stakeholder groups in the university (Gibb and Hannon, 2006) and the concept of the entrepreneurial university (Etzkowitz, 1983) spreads.

Education, primarily delivered by universities, is a vital component in the creation and continuing development of entrepreneurial attitudes (Gorman et al., 1997). Entrepreneurship education has been found to help foster entrepreneurial attitudes in young people (Gorman et al., 1997; Pittaway and Cope, 2007). A study into the motivation of young Europeans highlighted the role of education in developing interest in entrepreneurship, with 44% of 15–24 year-olds believing it had a prominent role (Gallup Organisation, 2007). Educational level and the availability of entrepreneurship training programmes have also been found to be determinants of entrepreneurial skills (GEM, 2008, 2009).

Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that academics, generally through research conducted in universities, are a significant source of entrepreneurial activity (D’Este and Perkmann, 2011), and that their role in stimulating economic activity has become more pronounced over the past 30 years. This developing entrepreneurial activity has been manifested in increased numbers of patents (Nelson, 2001), increased licensing income (Thursby et al., 2001) and increased numbers of academic spin-outs and start-ups (Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Shane, 2005) as well as more applied research conducted with partners and consultancy engagements (Ferreira et al., 2006).

Shane (2008) established the influence of education on entrepreneurial success in his study of US statistics on entrepreneurs. Among his findings were (i) success in terms of business survival is much higher for those who graduate from high school and go to college or university; (ii) a college or university graduate is likely to achieve 25% greater sales than a high-school dropout and (iii) someone with a postgraduate degree is likely to achieve 40% greater sales than a high-school graduate. Furthermore, a study in 2009 of high-growth businesses created in the United States over the previous 20 years determined that 85% had been created by college graduates (Economist, 2009).

The extent and nature of the role of the university in this context is still strongly debated in theoretical discussions concerning the ‘entrepreneurial university’ paradigm, the ‘third mission’, the ‘triple helix’ model and ‘regional innovation systems’. While these concepts have given rise to new models of university engagement in entrepreneurship, the role of the university is not entirely accepted. There is still some doubt as to whether entrepreneurship should be regarded as an academic discipline (Hisrich, 2006). There is fear that a concentration on university-business cooperation and entrepreneurial activity shifts the focus of research and knowledge production away from societal interests towards industry or individual interests (Ssebuwufu et al., 2012). Furthermore, some authors highlight problems for academics and students. For academics, entrepreneurial activity through a spin-off or start-up can substantially increase their workload (Chatterton and Goddard, 2000), may restrict the disclosure of research results (Carayol, 2003; Nelson, 2001) and can limit research productivity (Goldfarb, 2008) or the opportunity to publish (Carayol, 2003). For both academics and students, there is a potential loss of economic well-being through bankruptcy, with technological ventures especially at risk (Horowitz Gassol, 2007; Levratto, 2013; Zahra et al., 2007)

The specific role of universities in entrepreneurship

In the context of the entrepreneurial university, the modern university is challenged to contribute more holistically to knowledge and technology development and the regional innovation chain (Storn, 2008) while not seeing this activity as a significant threat to academic values (Clark, 2004).

The specific role and importance of entrepreneurship support mechanisms at universities are highlighted in the report Developing Entrepreneurial Graduates – Putting Entrepreneurship at the Centre of Higher Education (Herrmann et al., 2008). In the provision of entrepreneurship education and the development of entrepreneurial graduates, the literature outlines three main roles:

Developing entrepreneurial teaching and learning practices – There is a need to implement entrepreneurial practices, including multidisciplinary educators, experimentation and discovery, innovative pedagogies, experiential approaches and cross-campus reach. Universities as institutions of higher education can encourage students by providing entrepreneurial sensitization, education and training (Lüthje and Franke, 2003).

A fourth role was noted by Gibb and Hannon (2006):

Source of entrepreneurship – There are pressures on universities to play an enhanced role in contributing to the international competitiveness of the national economy, especially through the commercialization of research that is transferred to regional stakeholders in the form of patents and licences or through the creation of spin-outs.

These four roles have two primary objectives: the development of entrepreneurial thinking and acting through educational programmes and activities and the instigation and support of entrepreneurial initiatives by creating a stimulating an enabling environment through knowledge and technology development, stakeholder engagement and resource provision.

Executing the role of universities in entrepreneurship

Universities execute the role they play in entrepreneurship in four primary ways: through entrepreneurship education, the development of entrepreneurial thinking and acting, supporting entrepreneurship activity and entrepreneurial leadership.

Provision of entrepreneurship education

Entrepreneurship education can influence the thinking and acting of the academic or student. In the case of academics, an entrepreneurial mentality may lead to any of the forms of university-business cooperation. For students, it may lead to new venture creation during their studies, immediately after graduating or at some point in the future. Alternatively, it may enable them, as employees, to influence established businesses to act more entrepreneurially (intrapreneurship) or it may open up other opportunities for the individual (Gibb and Hannon, 2006).

This entrepreneurship education function is two-dimensional, affecting both the demand and supply sides. ‘Supplying’ entrepreneurship teaching or an entrepreneurial environment is only one side of the equation – and is sometimes referred to as the ‘top-down approach’ (Philpott et al., 2011). Without the driver of needs-based entrepreneurship, students in developed countries see less of a need to learn entrepreneurial principles and thus student interest in entrepreneurship reduces (Davey et al., 2011). Creating student recognition of the importance of entrepreneurial competencies and behaviours for their own future arguably needs as much if not more attention in Europe. This is the demand side of entrepreneurship education, reflecting a ‘bottom-up approach’ to stimulating motivation (Philpott et al., 2011).

A commonly overlooked factor in countries where there is a negative attitude to entrepreneurship, risk aversion and/or a strong fear of failure, resulting in negative social capital, is the essential role of sensitization and interest building in attracting students to entrepreneurship. To increase the ‘pool’ of potential entrepreneurs, students need both the willingness and the perceived ability to become an entrepreneur. From the French sensibilization, meaning raising interest and awareness, ‘sensitization’ is the first task of the university with respect to entrepreneurship education. It is important to establish a student’s awareness as the initial step in developing personal entrepreneurial skills.

Through entrepreneurship education programmes, then, universities can foster interest in entrepreneurial activity in both students and academics and entrepreneurial career paths in students (Davey et al., 2011). Such results can be achieved through entrepreneurship courses (Albert and Marion, 1997; Fayolle, 2007), creating active ‘hands-on’ course components which can significantly influence the entrepreneurial spirit (Fayolle and Klandt, 2006), the uncovering of previously unrecognized skills (Fayolle and Klandt, 2006) and the development of an entrepreneurial environment (Gibb, 1993).

The supply side of entrepreneurship education is executed through the provision of education in entrepreneurship. Driven by Schumpeter’s recognition of the unique capabilities of entrepreneurs, the first university classes in entrepreneurship began in 1940 (Katz, 2003). It was not until the 1960s, however, that entrepreneurship was embraced more widely as a discipline, with the first endowed professors (Gartner and Vesper, 1994). By 2006, there were over 2220 entrepreneurship courses at over 1600 universities and colleges worldwide (Hisrich, 2006), although most were in the United States. In Europe, the growth of entrepreneurship education has been somewhat slower with more rapid acceptance in some European nations than in others (e.g. in Wales 100% of all institutions and in England over 90% provide some form of opportunity for entrepreneurship education).

In gauging the influence a university can have, some findings highlight the role education can play in student entrepreneurship. Kraaijenbrink et al. (2010) found that student perceptions of entrepreneurship could be changed, emphasizing the role the university can play in fostering a positive image. In underlining the nurturing role of universities in shaping entrepreneurial careers, Verheul et al. (2002) conclude that student entrepreneurial competencies and behaviours can be developed through education.

The forms of education and training for entrepreneurs in universities can be classified in four categories:

Sensibilization for entrepreneurship – providing awareness education that focuses on increasing the number of people who have a motivation for or are sufficiently knowledgeable about entrepreneurship to consider it important for their future (Henry et al., 2005).

Entrepreneurship education – providing the development of entrepreneurial competencies and behaviours, including both hard and soft skills.

Education for entrepreneurship – providing practical assistance and training to those considering starting a new venture, often conducted at a tertiary level or in an informal course structure.

Education in entrepreneurship – providing continuing business education for those already in business (Henry et al., 2005).

Figure 1 summarizes the role of the university from an educational perspective, bringing together the demand and supply side roles.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Stages of entrepreneurship education.

Development of entrepreneurial thinking and acting

Given the increasing recognition of entrepreneurial skills, attributes and behaviours as essential employability and life skills for graduates (Nabi and Holden, 2008), universities are increasingly seen as having a central role in reshaping European human resources. With two main groups of entrepreneurship education identified, courses ‘for’ and ‘about’ entrepreneurship (Levie, 1999), developing entrepreneurial thinking and acting in graduates is firmly in the for group. However, the development of entrepreneurial thinking and acting within the university environment presents a number of challenges.

If we consider a university to be ‘a broad, pluralistic entrepreneurial stakeholder learning organization’ (Gibb and Haskins, 2013: 3), and if we reconsider the encouragement of student learning through innovative and experiential pedagogies (Lüthje and Franke, 2003), the process of creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1942) becomes a central educational premise, not least because the entrepreneurial life world is considered to be an environment in which change is the only constant.

This may present a challenge to some universities, especially large institutions, where change is slow and inflexible hierarchal structures may impede progress. Educators need to integrate change into learning environments and develop informal networks between themselves, their students and businesses (APPG, 2014; Wilson, 2012). Entrepreneurial educator networks have therefore become an international policy imperative and the existence of such networks is now an evaluation metric when looking at a country’s development (UNCTAD, 2012). This imperative extends beyond the university sector and into schooling and vocational education, in which teacher development through networks that exchange experiences, know-how and materials has been described as an ‘absolute priority’ (European Commission, 2013, foreword).

This perception has implications for the role of teachers in educational policy development, as informed teachers and educators can in turn inform policymaking and help to instigate cultural change (EU Commission, 2013; UNCTAD, 2012). Measuring learner attainment is one area of concern (European Commission, 2014) and an over-reliance on traditional methods of assessment (such as exams and essays) may impede progress (Pittaway and Edwards, 2012).

In the United Kingdom university sector, an educator-led initiative is the development of national guidance via the quality assurance agency (QAA) for higher education, a body that monitors and advises on standards and quality issues related to university education. As a key reference point, Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for Higher Education Providers (QAA, 2012) defines enterprising behaviours and skills and offers guidance on teaching methods and the assessment of student performance. This document is not only used for curriculum and extracurricular development but also informs university-level teacher-training initiatives (Higher Education Academy, 2014).

Awareness, mindset development and capability development require different pedagogical approaches, but all rely on an understanding of the autonomy an entrepreneurial individual needs to develop to be effective. The notion of a university educator as a ‘sage on the stage’ gives way to a ‘guide on the side’ who is well networked and can harvest support (Jones et al., 2014).

Change management is therefore not merely about the structuring and role of the institution; it is also about enabling adaptability and flexibility in the classroom or learning environment, where multiple ways of knowing (Marshall, 2011) require diverse learning skills and lead to diverse learning outcomes (QAA, 2012). This shifts the focus from teaching to learning and so formulaic content-driven work scheduling and predetermined learning outcomes give way to more holistic and boundary-crossing strategies. The breaking down of silos is also important, as not only can any discipline become entrepreneurial but the interdisciplinary boundaries between silos can also become the breeding ground for innovation (Amabile, 1998; Simonton, 2000; Sternberg and O’Hara, 1999).

To date, however, higher education systems in Europe have tended to remain highly specialized and lack the breadth that, for example, US institutions offer through elective courses offering broader insights (Etzkowitz, 2014).

Instigation and support of entrepreneurial initiatives

The ‘entrepreneurship in networks’ or ‘4S’ model (Groen, 2011) is a social system based process model of entrepreneurship developed at the University of Twente in the Netherlands. The model was inspired by social system theory and the process approach of entrepreneurship (Van der Sijde and Ridder, 2008). The University of Twente approach stresses that a university’s role in developing entrepreneurial students is not executed through offering education, but that many means of support are possible.

The model is illustrated in Figure 2. It depicts a three-stage value-added process, which represents a typical entrepreneurship process (Groen, 2005): (i) opportunity recognition – recognizing or creating an opportunity; (ii) opportunity preparation – converting this opportunity into a workable concept and (iii) opportunity exploitation – implementation of the concept with the goal of value creation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Entrepreneurship in Networks model.

The process is value-added because within each of the steps, it is possible to generate personal, economic or societal benefits as well as to develop the opportunity itself through interaction with the environment (Groen, 2011). The core idea of social system theory is explained by Parson as follows:

… a social system consists in a plurality of individual actors interacting with each other in a situation, which has at least a physical or environmental aspect, actors who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the ‘optimisation of gratification’ and whose relation to their situations, including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of culturally structured and shared symbols. (Parsons, 1951: 5–6.)

While observing the steps in the start-up process, the model describes four factors that can have an impact on each stage (Groen, 2005). These factors must operate effectively together to achieve sustainable success in the form of value creation. The factors are: interaction with other networks (social capital), the strategic position of an entrepreneur (strategic capital), the economic position (economic capital) of a potential entrepreneur and effective practices of the entrepreneur within his or her environment (cultural capital).

Social capital refers to the networks of the entrepreneurs, which put them in direct or indirect relationships with other entrepreneurs. It is defined as a set of network relationships, which allows the entrepreneur to access the resources of others and allows him or her to take advantage of those resources through the network, even though the resources may be controlled or possessed by others. The better the social capital, the more positive is the effect on the process steps.

The setting and pursuit of goals is associated with strategic capital. This category includes factors that could affect the strategic position of the entrepreneur. These include the mission or vision, the goals and the power of the entrepreneur to use these to bring the idea to market. Strategic capital also includes the planning of the founding process or the actual foundation of the new venture. The better the strategic position of the entrepreneur, the more likely is the successful implementation of the idea in the market.

The efficiency, performance and factors that affect the economic position of the entrepreneur are summarized as economic capital. The ideal amount of economic capital is dependent on the required capital intensity of each idea.

Finally, cultural and educational capital includes factors that contribute to the knowledge of the entrepreneur and covers skills, attributes and competencies. Also in this category are the existing technologies and the cultural environment, with its social norms, values and structures, in which the entrepreneur operates. Cultural and educational capital strongly influences social and personal attitudes to entrepreneurial activity (Groen et al., 2008).

While we endorse many elements of the 4S model, we would raise a question about its starting point. The model assumes that there is already a level of understanding and interest on the part of the stakeholder, whether an academic or a student. Following Braukmann’s (2002) assertion that the activation of interest in and recognition of the importance of the topic are essential in building professional vocational competence and foundation skills: that is, sensibilization or motivation/interest development is a crucial element of the entrepreneurship process. In countries exhibiting traditionally lower levels of interest in entrepreneurial careers, this sensibilization becomes even more important.

There is recognition in the literature that engagement with business is a core component of entrepreneurship education (Chiu, 2012), while it is recognized as a key type of collaboration between university and business various studies (Davey et al., 2011; Guimón, 2013; Wakkee et al., 2013).

Entrepreneurial leadership

Drucker writes that ‘entrepreneurs innovate’ in his seminal publication Innovation and Entrepreneurship (1985). This simple statement emphasizes two key points: the importance of the individual in stimulating innovation and change and the necessity of entrepreneurial ways of thinking and behaving for innovation to happen. A 21st century update to Drucker’s statement could be that ‘entrepreneurial individuals stimulate innovation’. This revised statement highlights a broader perspective: innovation is not driven only by entrepreneurs and innovation can happen wherever there are individuals who display entrepreneurial capacities across a diversity of contexts and cultural/social environments.

The phrase ‘entrepreneurial leadership’ brings together the two substantive concepts of entrepreneurship and leadership. Leadership is highly contextual and, in uncertain, unpredictable and complex environments, leaders need to be entrepreneurial. All entrepreneurs are likely to display leadership qualities and behaviours. We would argue that entrepreneurial leadership is what is now required in universities: new opportunities and risks abound and the governance of the institution needs to adopt the qualities and behaviours of which entrepreneurial leadership is comprised.

The literature on this topic is relatively sparse, and it has previously been noted as a neglected research area (Antonakis and Autio, 2007). Roomi and Harrison (2011) provide a useful analysis of the relevant literature in their exploration of the concept and, importantly, of how it should be taught. Roomi and Harrison cite a previous study by Gupta et al. (2004) which explores entrepreneurial leadership as a set of behaviours. Other articles assess it by examining the cases of established entrepreneurs. Cohen (2004) argues that the context is key, referring to the ‘climate’ and notes that it can either determine entrepreneurial leadership and or be driven by it. Thus, entrepreneurial leaders can exist at many levels in an organization. The idea of entrepreneurial leadership in higher education is not explored in this work.

Although entrepreneurial leadership is a recent construct, it is a growing global phenomenon. In the United States, Europe and Asia, for example, there are now institutes and centres dedicated to it. More studies have emerged in recent years (see, e.g. Bouman and Koopmans, 2010; Greenberg et al., 2011; Okello, 2014) as has a wide range of academic programmes in the United States, Europe and Africa, including a Master’s degree in the United Kingdom. The concept is also being applied in the context of church leaders, rural development and ‘goddess-preneurs’. There are various models and frameworks for entrepreneurial leadership which in essence distinguish the concept from traditional forms of managerial or corporatist leadership.

With regard to the university’s role in entrepreneurship development, entrepreneurial leadership is, first, an important personal capacity to be learned and developed by students and graduates and hence is part of the framework discussed above. Second, it is a key component of the entrepreneurial university. Entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours are more likely to thrive in places conducive to learning through and from experience, experimentation, play and failure, where there are role models and exemplars, and where being entrepreneurial is normalized and not viewed as subversive.

Entrepreneurial leadership can be both top-down and bottom-up. At the top of the institution, the senior postholders and management team need to provide a clear vision for entrepreneurship in the university, articulating the university’s commitment and demonstrating the importance of entrepreneurship to the future of the institution and its students and graduates. This vision is then translated into formalized strategies, goals, plans and key performance indicators that filter down the institutional infrastructure, providing effective mechanisms for assessing progress with the entrepreneurial agenda.

The notion of the entrepreneurial university has been explored in the literature in depth (Gibb and Hannon, 2006) and the challenge of entrepreneurial leadership has been discussed (Gibb et al., 2010). To stimulate more entrepreneurial leadership in the European higher education sector, the European commission, working with the OECD, has developed guidelines and an online self-assessment tool for institutional leaders, called ‘HEInnovate’ (https://heinnovate.eu/). The tool is designed to enable an institution to assess how well it is performing against seven key components:

leadership and governance;

Entrepreneurial leadership is essential to the stimulation of entrepreneurship in universities. Tools such as HEInnovate can provide valuable support for ensuring that our higher education institutions survive and succeed in turbulent times and that our graduates have the confidence and capability to embrace an entrepreneurial life.

Entrepreneurial stakeholders in the university

Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behaviour in universities are executed through two stakeholders: academics and students (graduates).

Articles in the special issue

In this opening article, the guest editors of this special issue have attempted to lay a foundation for the articles that follow through a broad discussion of the role of the university with regard to entrepreneurship.

The second article, ‘Commercial transfer – A business model innovation for the entrepreneurial university’ by Olaf Gaus and Matthias Raith, reviews the entrepreneurial university and its business models. With universities increasingly dependent on external funds, research policy is urging universities to interact proactively with the market. Against this background, the article reviews the logic of value creation in the university through its business model as a research and teaching institution and then displays how the entrepreneurial university develops commercial transfer as the third mission. Using an innovative approach, the article highlights how, through a change in the income structure, commercial knowledge transfer can affect the objectives and incentives of the university. In doing so, the authors clarify how universities derive income and how the increase in focus on the third mission influences its modus operandum.

The third article, ‘Curriculum development for technology-based entrepreneurship education: A cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural approach’ by Agne Kazakeviciute, Renata Urbone and Monika Petraite, addresses the contrast in university-based entrepreneurship education between the classical ‘business school’ and the contemporary cross-disciplinary ‘technology venturing’ approach. It addresses the conflict between approaches that advocate structured ‘business planning and executing’, following traditional management education, and those centred on ‘opportunity search and exploitation’, following the method common to cross-disciplinary discoveries in science. Including in its narrative, a comparative analysis of internationally acknowledged entrepreneurship education programmes, the article presents a cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural approach to technology entrepreneurship curriculum development at undergraduate level adopted at Kaunas University of Technology in Lithuania. The method described relies on the sequential development of individual, team-based and business skills, while applying the lean business model.

The next article, ‘Fostering an entrepreneurial mindset by using a design thinking approach in entrepreneurship education’ by Ana Dias Daniel, addresses the scope, objectives and methodologies appropriate to entrepreneurship education. The article describes the results of an approach to entrepreneurship teaching based on social constructivist methodology which assumes that students actively construct knowledge about themselves and the external environment. The methodology is adapted from the design thinking process and emphasizes empathy, integrative thinking, experimentalism and collaboration. The learning environment created allows a student-governed learning process that supports autonomy, self-reliance and independent thinking. The study assesses the adequacy of the design thinking approach at the University of Aveiro in Portugal, a university with entrepreneurship as a unit of most undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.

The fifth article, ‘Start-up entrepreneurs and university students in a co-learning mode: Learning effects of a collaborative entrepreneurial coaching programme’ is by Juha Saukkonen, Jussi Nukari, Sharon Ballard and Jonathan Levie. Considering that significant numbers of students in university business schools may find their future employment in a start-up environment, many courses in new venture creation have been implemented. Correspondingly, there is a demand for closer interaction between entrepreneurship education programmes and start-up ventures to enhance knowledge transfer. Saukkonen et al. examine the potential of holistic collaborative learning between start-up companies and students in an undergraduate business programme via a joint intensive entrepreneurial coaching programme. The empirical research investigates the impacts of an 8-week coaching intervention on the self-assessed capabilities of the participants and their assessment of critical capabilities for a start-up success as well as the retention of learning and the impacts of additional experience 1 year after the programme.

While entrepreneurial intentions and their antecedents have been extensively studied in student populations, mixed results have been recorded as to the success of higher education in forming entrepreneurial intentions. The final article, ‘Starting up a firm or not: Differences in the antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions’ by Elina Varamäki, Sanna Joensuu and Anmari Viljamaa, examines the antecedents of intentions in two different student populations, one group comprised of those currently starting a firm and the other those of who are not. Using a data set of 3754 responses, including 182 from respondents who were starting their own business at the time of the study, the article uses Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour. It investigates the role of attitudes and the development of entrepreneurial characteristics in the intention to start a business, finding a difference between the two cohorts studied which has important implications for entrepreneurship education.