21st Century Pragmatism: Universities and Entrepreneurship Education and

Development

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Dr. Teresa V. Menzies, Ph.D., Past President CCSBE/CCPME,

Associate Professor, Faculty of Business, Brock University
500 Glenridge Avenue, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1
Tel.905 688 5550 ext. 4118 Fax. 905 984 4188 http://eagle.bus.brocku.ca/~tmenzies

Abstract
Undoubtedly there has been a phenomenal growth in the number of formal “for credit”
entrepreneurship courses offered by universities in many countries. At the same time, there has been
an accompanying growth in the number of programs that have been initiated to encourage and
nurture self employment, small business creation and growth, and the creation of potential high
growth start-ups. The existence of the various tracks at this conference alone, indicates the breadth
and depth of the field of entrepreneurship and small business. To sum up the range of themes within
entrepreneurship education, we can look at the streams within our track. We consider
Entrepreneurship Education and Regional Development. Most countries want to boost employment
in rural areas as well as some urban centres, while some countries are in need of overall nationa l
growth. Another of our streams deals with National Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Education
Programs and this includes surveys of entrepreneurship education across various countries or
national policies regarding entrepreneurship education. Two streams deal directly with the
entrepreneurial education process. One looks at the various pedagogical approaches to achieve the
desired outcomes and another stream examines issues about the range of outcomes from attitude
change to venture starts. The interface between business and education is explored in yet another of
our streams.

A common factor across most of our streams is the critical role of the university. What role do
universities play in furthering entrepreneurship education and development? Have universities
adopted a pragmatic approach to providing entrepreneurship education and development? Are only
some universities buying into the pragmatic approach? What distinguishes the universities that have
embraced the 21st Century pragmatic approach to entrepreneurship education and development? Let
us examine the current and potential contribution of universities to entrepreneurship education and
development. A model of Universities and 21st Century Entrepreneurship Education Pragmatism is
presented. In addition, an agenda for future research in this area is outlined.
 Introduction
Participants at academic conferences most often sit calmly, sagely nodding at points of agreement,
jotting down questions that they will later pose to the presenters, or scribbling some notes to think
about at a later time. However, last year at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management in
Denver I was sitting in the audience at a session titled, Synergies between OB and Entrepreneurship.
During part of the session, the audience was not calm, they were not nodding sagely, they were not
jotting down notes. Most people, especially some Ph.D. students were straining to contain their angst
at what one of the speakers was presenting. This speaker was making the case that entrepreneurship
was not really a separate discipline, it should not be taught separately, that there was insufficient
theory on which to base a separate discipline, and that entrepreneurship was just a sub unit of
leadership. When the speaker finished and asked for questions a young doctoral student, two rows
ahead of me, rocketed to his feet. With all the enthusiasm and righteousness of youth he demanded
that the speaker be cognizant of the growing theoretical knowledge base in entrepreneurship and the
existence of the entrepreneurship scholarly journals that publish that research. Subsequently other
members of the audience took up the cause and vociferously argued the case for entrepreneurship as
a separate discipline.

Entrepreneurship Courses and Programs: “For University Credit”

Entrepreneurship is a new area in academia. New, that is, in relation to many of the other disciplinary
areas of management, commerce/business studies. Jeffrey Timmons, from Babson College (Timmons,
1999), argues that teaching entrepreneurship in a business school is as important as having an
obstetrics ward in a hospital. Why then, at some universities, are all students not able to take courses
in entrepreneurship? Why is entrepreneurship offered only as an elective in many Faculties of
Business (FOB)? Why is entrepreneurship only occasionally found as a required course(s). Many
reasons are given for the lack of entrepreneurship courses, for example, the culture of the university
department might be unsupportive, for a variety of reasons, there may be difficulty in recruiting
faculty to teach entrepreneurship, and existing programs may not be willing to include an additional
course in already crowded schedules. Nevertheless, due partly to champions amongst the faculty and
the demand by students there has been incredible growth in entrepreneurship, for credit, programs at
universities (Blais, 1997; Duke, 1996; Gartner & Vesper, 1994; McMullan & Vesper, 1987; Menzies
& Gasse, 1999; Vesper, 1985, 1993; Vesper & Gartner, 1997, 1999; Vesper & McMullan, 1988).
The popularity of entrepreneurship may be rooted in what I term 21st Century pragmatism.
Pragmatism is defined as “dealing with matters according to their practical significance or immediate
importance”. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1979 Edition). In this context, entrepreneurship is
valuable as it may enhance venturing frequency and success, as well as encouraging intrapreneuring
and enterprising attitudes and behaviours (Dyer, 1994; Gillin & Powe, 1994; Gorman & Hanlon,
1997; Hood & Young, 1993; McMullan & Vesper, 1987, 2000; Timmons, 1999; Wyckham &
Wedley, 1990; Young, 1997). Whether it is due to an entrepreneurial, intrapreneurial or just
enterprising rationale that drives the offering of entrepreneurship at universities, this ICSB
conference attests to the international importance of entrepreneurship and small business education.

Four years ago I reported on the number and type of entrepreneurship “credit” courses at Canadian
universities (Menzies & Gasse, 1999). At that time every university in Canada (except one) offered
one or more course in entrepreneurship. Most of the courses were offered by the Faculty of Business
(FOB) (or equivalent) either to their own students, or to a range of students across the university. At
the undergraduate level we reported that 52 FOB offered courses in entrepreneurship and 16
universities offered entrepreneurship through their Engineering Faculty. We also found that 29
universities had entrepreneurship courses at the graduate level, but only five Ph.D. programs
specialized to some extent on entrepreneurship.

Our theme for this conference is Advancing Entrepreneurship Education, so firstly, I would like to
address how entrepreneurship has advanced since that 1999 study. Set-backs have occurred, for
example, at one university in Canada, the MBA concentration in Entrepreneurship has been axed.
Then again, entrepreneurship is experiencing an immense surge in popularity. The concept of
integrating entrepreneurial and enterprising content into regular university programming is taking
root. Since 1999, the idea of entrepreneurship courses as electives has given way to entrepreneurship
courses as required courses. This may sound like a small advance, however, this single move
indicates faculty-wide recognition and acceptance of a “new discipline”. Please remember that we
are talking about a considerable change within an institution, “the university”, that is notoriously
conservative.

Vesper and Gartner (1999) surveyed the number and type of entrepreneurship courses worldwide,
and found about 22 courses (some double counting as they looked at target audience) dealing with
start-up or entry into business and 13 dealing with management of businesses. In Canada we have a
similar broad range of courses: 15 at the undergraduate level and 10 at the graduate. However, we
found the norm was universities offering only one, two or three courses in entrepreneurship, with
some exceptions where up to 11 entrepreneurship courses existed. Entrepreneurship courses offered
to undergraduates at universities in Canada include the following, listed in order of frequency with
the most common first: Small Business Management; New Venture Creation; Projects in
Business/Research Area; Starting a Small Business; Business Plans; Introduction to Entrepreneurship
(Career Option, Overview); Introduction to Entrepreneurship (Introduction to the field);
Management Consulting and Facilitation; Innovation Management; Family business; Creativity;
Enterprise Finance; High Growth Ventures; Intrapreneurship; and International Entrepreneurship.
Graduate courses covered similar topics. Arguably the proliferation of courses is a positive sign of a
burgeoning discipline. Conversely we can propose that too many different courses show a chaotic
and undisciplined discipline. Do we have sufficient theory to justify the proliferation of courses?
Theory requires “classical determinism” (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991: 17). Theories should have
predictive power for the individual and the firm. Building “useful” theory (applicable, predictable)
(Bygrave & Hofer, 1991; Penrose, 1989), should precede the teaching of entrepreneurship.
According to James Fiet (2002): “We weaken our teaching effectiveness when we try to teach the
answers to questions that have not been addressed in the literature of a theoretical stream of research.
Atheoretical teaching has limited usefulness as a guide for instructing aspiring entrepreneurs about
their prospects for future success” (p.10). Is there a sound justification for the creation of the various
courses? Are courses created at the whim of their champion to satisfy personal pre-disposition, or are
they driven pragmatically by the demands of the student cohort? This line of argument takes us back
to the first paragraph and advances our argument: Can the relatively new discipline of
entrepreneurship justifiably have such a proliferation of courses? Then again, we could ask: Why are
more universities not offering a more diverse range of entrepreneurship courses? Hopefully, over the
next few days we will hear arguments that will partly answer some of these questions about
advancing entrepreneurship education.

Figure 1 shows some of the ways in which entrepreneurship “for credit” courses are offered in
Canada, based on a recent survey of universities in Canada (Menzies, 2002; Menzies, 1999). It is
uncommon for a university to offer all these options. Activities 1, 2 and 3 are the more traditional
university credits, whereas 4, 5, and 6 are the new advances in the area of entrepreneurship, at least
in the Canadian context. Where will we see further advances in entrepreneurship education? Will
entrepreneurship courses remain as stand-alone courses or will there be an entrepreneurship
component within the regular courses across the university (an integrated or entrepreneurship
component model)? For universities with only one or two courses, there is a possibility that
motivational or awareness raising courses will disappear to be replaced by an entrepreneurship
component (integrated) approach. Perhaps there will be greater emphasis placed on pragmatism. Do
entrepreneurship courses deliver on their promise?
 Figure 1: The Range of “For Credit” Teaching Related Activities

THE
UNIVERSITY

1. 6.

“E” Credit Credit Courses with

Courses “E” Content
and Programs Entrepreneurship
Students in Teaching and/or enterprise
business, Entrepreneurship principles throughout
engineering and “For Credit” the curriculum.
other Courses
disciplines. Projects
Undergraduate Associated 5.
Masters Activities “For Credit”
Ph.D. Startups
New venture
start-ups in
2. independent
“For Credit”
study courses.
Consulting & 3.
Other
Projects “For Credit” 4.
Students assist Case Writing
“For Credit” Co-
Students write
with centre op Startups
activities cases for class
Work term new
use, publication
(e.g. business venture start-ups.
plans, (supervised).
e.g. Waterloo
consulting).

Note: “E” denotes entrepreneurship. Assume synergy between interrelated activities.

Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education

Although various outcomes can be ascribed to entrepreneurship education, the most popular question
always hinges on: After an entrepreneurship course, do student go on to start businesses? As many of
us are educators, we realize the false expectations that surround that question. Those of us who are
educators are especially aware that education, as opposed to training, is not an instant payback
phenomenon. We can inform pragmatists, those people who want to know the “practical significance
or immediate importance” of teaching entrepreneurship about a variety of positive outcomes
associated with teaching entrepreneurship. For example, Blais (1997) gives at least seven reasons for
making entrepreneurship a mandatory part of undergraduate engineering education. Blais’ reasons
include: to add a practical bias for both student s and faculty; to provide a strong motivation for
students to become more creative and innovative; to encourage and improve students’ ability to work
with others in team and joint venture initiatives; to act as a valuable initiation to the social sciences;
to introduce students to small business concepts; to encourage engineers to start ventures and play an
important role in job creation; to nurture regional development through start- ups; to enhance skills
and knowledge in relation to intrapreneurship in existing ventures.

We do have some feedback about the venturing rate of students after they have taken one or more
courses in entrepreneurship. Eighty-seven per cent of graduates from the entrepreneurship program
at Swinburne University in Australia started their own business or were intrapreneurs (McMullan
and Gillin, 1998). Graduates with a degree in entrepreneurship, were found to have a higher
venturing rate than graduates from other disciplines (Kolvereid & Moen,1997). Another study found
that several years after graduation, 40% of entrepreneurship graduates had started their own firms,
30% worked in a family business, and 30% worked for a corporation (Upton, Sexton & Moore,
1995). A study by Charney and Lidecap (2000) in the US reports that just over a quarter of
entrepreneurship graduates (27.2%) owned a business, compared with 9% for graduates from other
areas of business. [Lower venturing rates were found in Ireland where only 5% of university
graduates owned a business within five years, and 15% by 10 years after graduation (Fleming,
1996)]. At issue with many of these studies is the question of the motivation for students to take a
course in entrepreneurship. Was there already a pre-disposition to start a business, prior to taking the
course in entrepreneurship? If so, do venturing rates tell us much about the value added by the
entrepreneurship course? Is it more meaningful to enquire into the success of the businesses created
by students who have taken a course in entrepreneurship versus those that have not? Then again, is
one or more course in entrepreneurship sufficient to make a difference in subsequent business
performance, given the myriad of factors that can influence new venture success?

Early results from a longitudinal study of engineering graduates in Canada show that venturing rates
are considerably higher for those who had taken one course in entrepreneurship during their
undergraduate program. Only 26% of a stratified, random sample comparison group had been a
business owner at any time since graduation, compared with 48% for the group that had taken one
course in entrepreneurship (Menzies & Paradi, 2002). However, when we analyzed the business
characteristics of these two groups, we did not find any significant differences (Menzies & Paradi,
(2003). Outcomes related research is under-researched in the entrepreneurship literature.
 Entrepreneurship Development: The “Not for University Credit” Activities
In the US there are many endowed Chairs in Entrepreneurship, but this is much less common in
Canada. There are only a few entrepreneurship “centres” or “institutes” that are research focussed
(cf. Sandberg & Gatewood, 1991). We do in Canada, however, have a number of university-based
entrepreneurship centres that provide “not for credit” seminars, services and assistance for students
starting or running their own business. As shown in Figure 2, these services are aimed at leadership
building in relation to self awareness and competency enhancement, venture pre-concept, concept
and launch activities. Where can we expect to see advances in this area of entrepreneurship
development? The Acadia University model which emphasizes leadership potential amongst all
students with the building of personal portfolios, extra curricular activities and self awareness
exercises may have potential for making university education more relevant for many students and
also may enhance their entrepreneurial, intrapreneurial and enterprising abilities. Incubators are not
particularly popular due their high cost of operation. However, if technology transfer and
entrepreneurship centres can combine their activities, then incubators may become more common on
university campuses in Canada. (I am not addressing the topic of the university and technology
transfer, the university as an incubator of new ventures, or the incidence and facilitation of
entrepreneurial activities for faculty due to time constraints.)

One of the most interesting developments in Canada has been the growth of ACE (Association of
Collegiate Entrepreneurs) clubs at most universities and some colleges. Students from across the
university are members of an ACE club which initiates and operates new business ventures, and gets
involved in international activities that nurture self sufficiency and entrepreneurial activities in
under-developed countries. They also run charity events to raise funds for a variety of organizations
in their community. A large part of the ACE mandate is to educate people in their club and in the
wider community about entrepreneurship. ACE clubs participate in an annual competition and then
the top team competes in the SIFE (Students in Free Enterprise) international competition. The
impressive thing about ACE is that they have faculty advisors but largely operate as independent,
student-run clubs that have greatly enhanced the linkages between the university and the community
in which they are located. ACE is one of the great advancers of informal entrepreneurship education.
 Figure 2: The Range of Services and Activities offered to the Internal Community (mostly
students) by University-based Entrepreneurship Centres

“E” AWARENESS, THE STARTUP

READINESS UNIVERSITY ASSISTANCE FOR
SKILLS, AND STUDENTS
KNOWLEDGE
BUILDING Counselling &
Assistance
Seminars, Workshops,
Non-Credit Courses Incubator for Startup
& Early Growth
Entrepreneurship
Participation in Support
Business Plan Centre
Competitions Startup Financing
University Community Assistance
Facilitating Clubs Service: Internal
Mentoring (In/formal)
Development of
Venture Concept Mostly for Students
Networking
(In/formal)
Publications, Videos

NURTURING
TRAINING AND STUDENTS TO BE
PRACTICE THROUGH ENTERPRISING/
EMPLOYMENT ENTREPRENEURIAL
Students work in the centre Self awareness, leadership,
and develop skills etc. portfolio building,
participation in on and off
campus activities.

Note: “E” denotes entrepreneurship. Assume synergy between interrelated activities.

Entrepreneurship Development: Activities for the External Community

Another category of university-based entrepreneurship centre in Canada is focussed on assisting
individuals and businesses in the wider community. Many centres in this latter category were
established primarily as small business development centres (Figure 3). An interesting innovation
that has just occurred this year is that the Business Development Bank of Canada, a crown
corporation, has partnered with several universities across Canada to provide loans for clients of
entrepreneurship centres that are seeking financing. This is an important development as it shows
that a government agency is acknowledging the role that universities are playing not just for their
own students but also for people in the wider community that they serve.
University-based entrepreneurship centres that concentrate on activities for their wider community
are most often, though not exclusively, found in the Eastern provinces and the Prairies, where there
is lower economic growth and higher unemployment than in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British
Columbia.

Figure 3: The Range of Services and Activities offered to the External Community by University-Based
Entrepreneurship Centres

THE
UNIVERSITY

Consulting &
Building Awareness Accelerating
of Entrepreneurship
Misc. Activities
New, established &
Awards and high growth business
Entrepreneurship Centre
Competitions “The Outside Focus”
Facilitating and Training for Business
hosting to further “E” Services and
Counsellors
awareness Activities for
General Population
Train the trainer
Small Business
Youth Aspiring Entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurship Nascent Entrepreneurs Publications &
Camps and Activities Start-ups Media
Communities, TV, videos,
Organizations publications
Start-up Assistance
Training and
For individuals and
Creating Jobs
Communities Assistance

Networking Mentoring Minority Business Plans

Entrepreneurship
Programs and Informal & Programs For start-up or
For start-ups & existing business
activities Formal
established business

Note: “E” denotes entrepreneurship. Assume synergy between interrelated activities.

Some university-based entrepreneurship centres, for example, in Ontario and British Columbia have
closed. These centres depend largely on the charisma and power of their Champion, who is often the
Director of the centre. If the centre Director is an academic, then at least in Canada, there is often a
conflict between the academic responsibilities (teaching and researching) and the centre
responsibilities (dealing with outside client issues). If a centre loses its champion or if there is a
change in the administration then a centre may be forced to close. The largest “community focussed”
centres in Canada do not have an academic for their Director. They have someone who is
experienced in business to run their centre. Of course, there are many different models for a
university-based entrepreneurship centre in Canada. That’s what makes it such an interesting area to
study. Universities, though I have stated that they are notoriously conservative, seem to be capable of
nurturing the most creative and entrepreneurial of organizational units when it comes to
entrepreneurship related services.

Conference Themes

We have grouped the papers submitted to the conference into five categories. These papers will
advance our knowledge of entrepreneurship education and contribute to the debate on vital questions
about how to advance our discipline. We will hear national perspectives on entrepreneurship
education, in relation to Argentina, Australia, Croatia and the United States. How to leverage
entrepreneurship education to have an impact on the local, regional and national economies will be
the subject of several presentations. We’ll hear about initiatives in Brazil, Italy, Mexico and the US,
and a collaborative program between Ireland and South Africa. We are going to learn from our
colleagues about the pedagogical aspects of teaching entrepreneurship. For example, are we, should
we, or can we, teach entrepreneurship versus small business (management). We’ll also hear a
presentation on pedagogical tools to enhance teaching and learning. The outcomes related to
entrepreneurship education are addressed by several presenters. We will learn how graduates value
the process and outcomes related to their entrepreneurship education with paper presentations that
concern England, France, and one study that deals with Ireland and the US. A paper from the US will
tell us about student attitudes and outcomes following an integrated entrepreneurship curriculum
course. We’ll hear about outcomes in relation to whether government goals for entrepreneurship
education are being met. The issue of prior knowledge and entrepreneurial discovery, in relation to
outcomes, will also be presented. Our final conference category deals with the education to business
interface. One presentation in this group deals with producing entrepreneurs through competitive
participation. Another illuminates the student view of employment in small businesses through the
educatio n/business interface. A third paper explores the perceptions of business owners towards our
graduates in relation to employment in the small business sector.
 Advancing Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship is a dynamic discipline which is still at the early stage of determining the what, and
how, questions. Marketing has the 4 Ps and I propose that the model to advance entrepreneurship
education leverage somewhat on our colleagues in that cognitive area. We also need to be concerned
with the 4 Ps. However, the 4 Ps acronym I propose, as shown in Figure 4, stands for the following:

P = Popularity We are enriched, nourished and encouraged but also challenged and bedeviled
by the very popularity that is driving entrepreneurship education. Our rush to
provide courses and programs may lead to a weak foundation for
entrepreneurship education? There may be a lack of theoretical rigor to
accompany our course offerings. There could be a lack of uniformity across
our disciplinary area. We may develop as a fragmented cognitive area. These
issues lead to the question of whether we will be accepted “fully” into the
“academy”? Then again, is emergent, new, and diverse, necessarily less
rigorous, or simply just new? Popularity associated with incredible growth
leads to some other questions: Who will teach entrepreneurship? Who should
teach entrepreneurship? Can we meet the demand with the current number of
doctoral students?

P = Pedagogy How do we teach entrepreneurship? Do we use action based learning? Do we

teach similarly to regular disciplines in, for example, business? Do we employ
the traditional case approach? Do we utilize integrated programming where
entrepreneurship is a component of the regular disciplines (as is now occurring
in the elementary and secondary schools)? Do we use expert and novice
scripts, based largely on imperfect knowledge? Regardless of our pedagogical
approach, experimentation must be accompanied by longitudinal examination
of outcomes.

P = Pragmatism (Definition: dealing with matters according to their practical significance or

immediate importance; Oxford Concise Dictionary, New Edition, 1979). As
with the popularity of entrepreneurship, pragmatism is our friend and our foe.
Expectations are high for what entrepreneurship can do for individuals,
regions and countries. If we don’t deliver, then there will be a high cost. If we
do deliver, popularity increases and consequently so do the positive and
negative consequences.
P = Pedantry (Definition: insisting on strict adherence to forma l rules; obsessed by a theory,
doctrine; Oxford Concise Dictionary, New Edition, 1979). The entrance to the
fortress of knowledge is only through official city gates. The city gates are
closed to all but the generally accepted and published theories of the various
disciplines. Will entrepreneurship be mired in angst until we find our general
theory of entrepreneurship? Will the relatively small group of elite researchers
in entrepreneurship bias our view of new knowledge? As in some other
disciplines will there be destruction or shunning of current practices and will a
phoenix rise from the ashes?

We need to address our research energies and debate around these 4Ps to establish routes to advance
entrepreneurship education.

Figure 4: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education: A Model for Discussion

POPULARITY PRAGMATISM

PEDAGOGY PEDANTRY
 Acknowledgement
I would like to thank the John Dobson Foundation for funding my research on entrepreneurship and
the Canadian Universities. The John Dobson Foundation funds most of the entrepreneurship centres
across Canada.

References

Blais, R. A. (1997). Technological entrepreneurship and engineering in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian

Academy of Engineering.

Bygrave, W. D., & Hofer, C. W. (1991). Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship:

Theory and Practice, 16(2). 13-22.

Charney, A., & Lidecap, G. D. (2000). The impact of entrepreneurship education: An evaluation of
the Berger entrepreneurship program at the University of Arizona, 1985-99. Tucson: Ewing
Marion Kauffman Foundation.

Duke, C. R. (1996). Exploring student interest in entrepreneurship courses. Journal of Marketing

Education, 18(3), 35-46.

Dyer, W. G. (1994). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial careers. Entrepreneurship: Theory and

Practice, 19(2), 7-21.

Fleming, P. (1996). Entrepreneurship education in Ireland: a longitudinal survey. Academy of

Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1), 95-119.

Fiet, J. O. (2001). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing
16(1), 1-24.

Gartner, W. B., & Vesper, K. H. (1994). Experiments in entrepreneurship education: Successes

and failures. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), 179-189.

Gillin, L. M., & Powe, M. (1994). Added value from teaching entrepreneurship and innovation
(Abstract). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1994 Edition, 687-689.

Gorman, G., & Hanlon, D. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education,
enterprise education and education for small business management: A ten-year literature review.
International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 56-79.

Hood, J. N., & 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.

Kolvereid, L., & Moen, O. (1997). Entrepreneurship among business graduates: Does a major in
entrepreneurship make a difference? Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(4), 154-160.

McMullan, W. E., & Gillin, L. M. (1998). Entrepreneurship education: Developing technological

start-up entrepreneurs. A case study of a graduate entrepreneurship programme at Swinburne
University. Technovation, 18(4), 275-286.

McMullan, W. E., & Vesper, K. H. (1987). Universities and community venture development. In R.
G. Wyckam, L. N. Meredity & G. R. Bushe (Eds.), The spirit of enterprise, (pp. 350-370).
Vancouver, Canada: Simon Fraser University.
McMullan, W. E., & Vesper, K. H. (2000). Becoming an entrepreneur: A participant's
perspective. Entrepreneurship and Innovation, February, 33-43.

Menzies, T. V. (1998). Entrepreneurship and the Canadian universities: Report of a National study
of entrepreneurship centres. St. Catharines: Brock University.

Menzies, T. V., & Gasse, Y. (1999). Entrepreneurship and the Canadian universities: A national
report on entrepreneurship education. St. Catharines: Brock University.

Menzies, T. V. (Ed.). (2002). Entrepreneurship and the Canadian Universities: Strategies and Best
Practices of Entrepreneurship Centres. 161pp. St. Catharines, ON: Author.

Menzies, T.V., & Paradi, J.C. (2002). Encouraging technology-based ventures: Entrepreneurship
education and engineering graduates. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 57-64.

Menzies, T.V., & Paradi, J.C. (2003). Entrepreneurship education and engineering students:
Career path and business performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, 6(2), 85-96.

Penrose, R. (1989). The emperor’s new mind: concerning computers, minds and the laws
of physics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sandberg, W. R. & Gatewood, E.J. (1991). A profile of entrepreneurship research centres:

Orientations, interests, activities and resources. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(3), 11-
24.

Timmons, J. (1999). New venture creation, (5th ed.). Chicago: Irwin.

Upton, N. B., Sexton, D. L., & Moore, C. (1995). Have we made a difference? An examination of
career activity of entrepreneurship majors since 1981 (Abstract). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research 1995 Edition, 727-728.

Vesper, K. H. (1985). Entrepreneurship education - 1985. Wellesley, MA: Babson College Center
for Entrepreneurial Studies.

Vesper, K. H. (1993). Entrepreneurship education - 1993. Los Angeles, CA: University of

California, Los Angeles Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.

Vesper, K.H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal
of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421.

Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1999). University entrepreneurship programs - 1999. Lloyd Greif
Center for Entrepreneuria l Studies. University of Southern California.

Vesper, K. H., & McMullan, W. E. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Today courses, tomorrow degrees?
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 13(1), 7-13.

Wyckham, R. G., & Wedley, W. C. (1990). Factors related to venture feasibility analysis and
business plan preparation. Journal of Small Business Management. 28(4), 48-61.