Entrepreneurship - What Are We Talking about? - Gaps Created by Rhetorical Challenges and Misguided Foci

Abstract:
Questions we care about (Objectives)
Entrepreneurship has made its way from business educations into the majority of educational fields in higher education. Much funding is channelled into educations to promote and embed entrepreneurship, but what is entrepreneurship in an educational context and what should it be? I ventured into the world of entrepreneurship education research 5 years ago and I have read and heard many definitions of entrepreneurship; it is the creation of an organization, a method, a process, a mind-set, a trait, value creation or behaviour. On many occasions, entrepreneurship is used interchangeably with enterprise blurring the borders of the terms. When educators and researchers operate with vague definitions and/or different understandings of the term gaps are formed, both within the field of entrepreneurship education and between the field and other educational fields, by this rhetorical challenge. It poses as a problem for developing entrepreneurship as a field of research and in implementing entrepreneurship education in practice. Therefore, once again this paper raises the question “what are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship in higher education?” and maybe more importantly “what should we be talking about?”
Approach
Starting from key contributions in relation to definition issues in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education (EE) and snowballing, a minor literature review has been conducted to identify definitions of entrepreneurship, primarily relating to EE, in theory. The result was compared with empirical data of definitions in practice from five different Danish engineering educations. Based on these definitions, and drawing on practical experience, a conceptual discussion is spurred. A discussion about what entrepreneurship education should be about, in higher education, to start bridging the gaps.
Results
Entrepreneurship is defined in many ways both in theory and practice. In the definitions there appears to be two foci, a people focus and a process focus. With the definition issues many descriptions of entrepreneurship becomes outcome focused. The described outcome vary from the narrow establishment of a new economic entity to the very broad new value creation.
Implications
One final suggestion of how to define entrepreneurship to bridge the rhetorical gaps is not proposed by this paper. It acknowledge the multiple definitions and advocates for explicitly defining entrepreneurship in any given context. Furthermore, it seeks to raise the question of not only what is entrepreneurship but also what should it be in a higher educational context. In this connection a greater focus on intrapreneurship is proposed along with the embedment of enterprise in general formation.
Value/Originality
This paper seeks to shed light on the multiple definitions of entrepreneurship that is in play in theory and practice in entrepreneurship education. The multiple definitions of entrepreneurship can be the source of gaps between researchers and educators. However, bridges can be built through explicitly defining the term. In future reference, what should entrepreneurship be about in higher education? This paper takes a critical position in relation to the relevance of entrepreneurship, as new venture creation,for the majority of the student body. In extension, enterprise education, as acting on opportunities, easily becomes intangible and the utility can be difficult for students to grasp. For this reason, it is proposed that in the future more attention should be directed towards intrepreneurship. This focus could potentially help students bridge the gap between being learners and becoming value-creators as employees.