Developing Enterprising Graduates: Stakeholder Involvement, Investment and Expectations of Entrepreneurship Education Dr Harry Matlay, Professor of Small Business and Enterprise Development Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Birmingham City Business School Birmingham City University F212, Perry Barr, Birmingham B42 2SU Tel: 0121 331 6640 Fax: 0121 6366 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract Principal Topic & Research Question(s) As a dynamic concept, entrepreneurship has been adopted by a wide range of stakeholders, to describe a variety of socio-economic, educational and cultural activities, situations and perspectives. Most importantly, however, it has attained political topicality as the panacea to declining or stagnating economic activity and a pragmatic solution to growing youth and adult unemployment (Matlay, 2009). In the context of the recent expansion of the UK Higher Education (HE) sector and the ensuing increase in student numbers, graduate entrepreneurship is perceived by government representatives as a potent contributor to sustainable competitive advantage, economic growth and new jobs creation (Galloway and Brown, 2002; Bridge and McGowan, 2007). The increase in the number and range of entrepreneurship education courses offered in UK Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) can be attributed directly to the high priority that government, policy makers and business commentators attach to entrepreneurship as an engine of economic development (Henry et al., 2003; Hartshorn and Hannon, 2005). This has led to a shared perception, amongst an influential group of stakeholders, that entrepreneurship education represents an efficient and cost effective means of increasing both the number and the quality of enterprising graduates entering the economy (Matlay, 2006a). This study seeks to extend prior research by exploring the impact that stakeholder can have on developing enterprising graduates in the UK. Specifically, extant theory and empirical evidence from the entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education literatures are employed to investigate four primary research questions. First, what are the underlining reasons for developing enterprising graduates in UK HEIs? Second, what is the extent of stakeholder involvement and investment in entrepreneurship education? Third, how realistic are stakeholders‟ expectations of entrepreneurship education offered by UK HEIs? Fourth, how prepared are graduate entrepreneurs for new venture creation? Exploring these questions will provide a better understanding of the dynamics involved in developing graduate entrepreneurs

in UK HEIs and the extent of stakeholder involvement/investment in this important aspect of entrepreneurship education. Methodology/Key Proposition This research study draws upon the preliminary results of longitudinal telephone surveys that were conducted annually, over a ten year period (2000 to 2009) to document and analyse 334 stakeholders‟ involvement in entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs. The quantitative data obtained from longitudinal surveys confirms the existence of a wide range of stakeholders, all of whom claim to have an interest in entrepreneurship education offered by UK HEIs. Our key proposition is that the extent of stakeholder involvement, investment and expectations varies considerably in accordance to their overall position in relation to entrepreneurship education. The longitudinal data analysis provides robust results relating to the importance of stakeholder interest, involvement and investment in developing graduate entrepreneurs in UK HEIs. Contributions This empirical study makes four specific contributions to the emergent research on developing graduate entrepreneurs in UK HEIs. First, it establishes the existence and position of primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders, all of whom claim to have an interest in the development of graduate entrepreneurs in UK HEIs. Second, stakeholder involvement and investment in entrepreneurship education varies in accordance to their position and the relative importance attributed to graduate entrepreneurship. Third, stakeholder investment in, and expected returns from, entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs is realistic and reflects specific knowledge and/or experience of graduate entrepreneurship activity at local, regional and national levels. Fourth, it emerges that graduates who attend entrepreneurship education courses are significantly better prepared for new venture creation than those who opt for a university education that excludes topics related to new venture creation and management. An agenda for future research is offered for the benefit of researchers who are interested in studying the impact of entrepreneurship education on graduates‟ ability to create and manage new business ventures.

Introduction It has often been stated that the attitudes, expectations and work styles of consecutive generations can differ considerably and that each has a defining moment which is seen to determine, influence and illustrate its identity, voice and direction (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005; Twenge, 2006). In the post-Second World War period, the „traditional‟ generation boasted great leaders, visionary entrepreneurs and talented innovators (Zemke et al., 2000). The working population benefitted from full employment and relative affluence (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). Such prosperity, however, could not be sustained in the long term and following generations experienced accelerating boom and bust cycles that resulted in widely fluctuating levels of short- and long-term unemployment. According to Audretsch (2007:3) “… the moment that defined the baby boom generation‟s voice, direction and identity occurred in The Graduate … where a young Dustin Hoffman is seen celebrating his

college graduation”. It is the character‟s indecision and confusion about his future career that defines and endears him to audiences. His predicament was typical of graduates belonging to the „baby boom‟ generation, including their choices, ambitions and career paths. Most male graduates headed for managerial positions in large manufacturing corporations and a minority joined their father‟s businesses in order to learn how to become „enterprising‟. Female graduates sought secretarial or admin positions, while searching for well to do or career oriented husbands. The less educationally advantaged could find ample employment opportunities on the shop floor of giant manufacturing corporations (Seavoy, 2006; Aldrich, 2007). In contrast, for „generation X‟ graduates, the world of work and related career choices had changed radically: oil shocks, economic downturns and large scale downsizing meant that small and medium-sized organisations had taken over from manufacturing corporations as their prime career destinations (Matlay and Carey, 2007). Interestingly, most of generation X graduates still exhibited a distinct preference for higher salaries and better working conditions offered by larger organisations over the diversity of roles and responsibilities that could be found in smaller firms (Matlay, 2009). Nevertheless, some graduates were tempted by the promise of wealth and power into considering an entrepreneurial career and lifestyle within a thriving and largely favourable enterprise culture (Matlay, 2008). By the time „generation Y‟ enrolled in HEIs, large employers were in decline and a rapidly growing cohort of new graduates was forced to choose between three main options: unemployment, employment in smaller businesses or an entrepreneurial career (Thompson, 2009). In recent years, entrepreneurship appears to have become a routine career choice for the brighter and more enterprising graduates in the UK. New venture creation is promoted by student advisers as an antidote to endemic job insecurity or long term unemployment (Westhead and Matlay, 2006). As a dynamic concept, entrepreneurship has been adopted by a wide range of stakeholders, to describe a variety of socio-economic activities, situations and perspectives. Most importantly, however, it has attained political topicality as the panacea to stagnating or declining economic activity and rising youth and adult unemployment (Matlay, 2005). In the context of the recent expansion of the UK Higher Education (HE) sector and the rapid increase in student numbers, graduate entrepreneurship is perceived by government as a potent contributor to sustainable competitive advantage, economic growth and job creation (Bridge and McGowan, 2007). Thus, the increase in the number and range of entrepreneurship courses offered in UK HEIs can be attributed directly to the high priority that influential stakeholders such as government representatives, policy makers and business commentators, attach to entrepreneurship as an engine of economic development (Hartshorn and Hannon, 2005). This has led to a shared perception, amongst various stakeholders, that entrepreneurship education represents an efficient and cost effective means to increase the number and quality of enterprising graduates entering the economy (Matlay, 2006a). There exists a paucity of empirically rigorous research that links entrepreneurship education to the development of enterprising graduates or to positive entrepreneurial outcomes (Kirby, 2004). In this paper we set out to bridge the gap between the theory and practice of developing enterprising graduates through entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs. In the next section we offer a critical review of the cross disciplinary specialist literature relating to entrepreneurship education, enterprising graduates and stakeholder involvement in UK HEIs. The methodology adopted for the longitudinal research study upon which this paper is based is outlined

in the third section. There follows a discussion of the research findings in the context of the specialist literature. The final section concludes the article and offer a number of pertinent policy recommendation.

Developing Enterprising Graduates in UK HEIs Concerns relating to the expansion of Higher Education in the UK and the increased participation of graduates in the economy can be traced back to the 19th Century (Curtis and Boultwood, 1966). It was only after the end of the Second Word War, however, that consecutive governments in the UK began investing considerable resources to widen access to higher education and increase the number as well as the quality of graduates entering the economy (Warner and Palfreyman, 2001). It is worth noting that similar educational policies have been pursued on continental Europe, North America and Australasia (van der Wende, 2007; Scott, 2009; Usher, 2009). Researchers were quick to point out that there were both positive and negative outcomes attributable to the widening of access to higher education (Reay et al., 2001; Burke, 2002). For instance, recent educational policies have resulted in a significant increase in access to higher education of both young adults and mature individuals. This has resulted in a considerable reduction in access inequality. Furthermore, age, gender and race barriers have been either removed or reduced significantly. Unfortunately, however, these had no significant effect upon either relative or absolute social class inequality (Furlong and Cartmel, 2006). In addition, the ensuing expansion in the number of graduates entering the economy has resulted in rapidly rising rates of graduate underutilisation and unemployment at a time when overall unemployment has fallen significantly (Matlay, 2009). Many socio-economic and cultural aspects of graduate employment remain under researched and there is a notable shortage of empirically rigorous studies that focus on graduate self-employment and/or related new venture creation. There exists, however, a substantial multidisciplinary literature on the mismatch between the educational achievements of graduates and the skills and knowledge requirements of various economic activities in which they become involved (Allen and de Weert, 2007). The impact of educational mismatch on firm innovation and competitiveness can manifest itself at all levels of economic activity, including local, regional and global (Teichler, 2007). Although there is no agreement on the extent of the skills disparity, most observers agree that it tends to negatively affect productivity, innovation, earnings and the job satisfaction of graduates in employment (Macdonald and Hursh, 2006). Despite ongoing concerns and criticisms, the move to widen access to higher education continues and many HEIs strive to enlarge their cohorts of both undergraduates and postgraduate students. In terms of developing „enterprising graduates‟, entrepreneurship education occupies a prime position in the strategy of business schools and it is increasingly adopted by other faculties, such as art and design, engineering, computing and nursing (Carey and Matlay, 2010). In this context, longitudinal research on developing enterprising graduates and the impact of stakeholder involvement in HEIs plays an important role in informing both the theory and the practice of entrepreneurship education in the UK (Matlay, 2009).

Entrepreneurship Education in UK HEIs

It is generally acknowledged that entrepreneurship is a multidisciplinary field of study and that no single discipline or research approach could fully explain this complex and heterogeneous phenomenon (Parker, 2005). Considering the widespread policy, practitioner and media interest in, and coverage of, entrepreneurship as career and lifestyle choice as well as an innovative and dynamic economic activity, it is hardly surprising that research interest in the UK has grown commensurably. In this context, Ireland and Webb (2007:892) postulate that “…evidence suggests that scholars from multiple disciplines (e.g., anthropology, economics, psychology, sociology, and strategic management, to name a few) form and subsequently examine questions concerning individual, firm, and society level effects of entrepreneurship”. Therefore, as an emergent subtopic, research in entrepreneurship education must also embrace interrelated disciplines, perspectives and approaches (Matlay, 2008). Historically, the origins of entrepreneurship education are lost in antiquity (Hebert and Link, 2009). Some authors claim that the contemporary beginnings of this type of education can be traced to the provision of entrepreneurship courses in Japan, during the late 1930s (Solomon et al., 2002). Others, however, argue that the first representative courses in entrepreneurship education were not offered until 1947 at Harvard University, where a small number of enterprise management courses were made available in addition to traditional business education, (see Landström and Sexton, 2000; Matlay, 2005). The Harvard University connection is important as it highlights not only the beginnings of modern entrepreneurship education in industrially developed countries, but it also explains the reasons behind its emergence and phenomenal growth in the US and elsewhere (Gartner and Vesper, 1994). According to Solomon and Fernald (1991) the emergence and initial expansion of enterprise related education in the US is attributable to students‟ and accreditation bodies‟ dissatisfaction with general business education offered at university level. The Harvard University experiment with entrepreneurship education became a widely emulated case of „best practice‟ in promoting entrepreneurial learning, knowledge management and skills development (Matlay and Carey, 2007). While similar reasons ensured the adoption and expansion of entrepreneurship education in Europe, North America, Australasia and other industrially developed countries, its specific developmental path varied in accordance to local and regional socio-economic, cultural and educational traditions (Baharun and Ahmad, 2002; Li et al., 2003). In the UK, the phenomenal growth in entrepreneurship education over the last three decades has been fuelled by a number of commonly held assumptions and paradigms, most of which appear to be deeply routed in the rhetoric of „enterprise culture‟ and the „entrepreneurial society‟ (Matlay, 2006a). The dominant paradigm, shared by a variety of influential stakeholders, proclaims that in an industrially developed economy, more and better entrepreneurship education will result in a comparable growth in the number and quality of entrepreneurs entering an economy (Matlay, 2001). Stakeholder perceptions are based on the assumption that there exists a positive relationship between individuals‟ educational achievement and their choice of becoming entrepreneurs (Dickson and Solomon, 2008). Similar inferences are made in relation to positive outcomes attributable to entrepreneurial activities and entrepreneurship education (Matlay and Carey, 2007). Not surprisingly, therefore, most stakeholders who profess to have a keen interest in entrepreneurship education are convinced of the socio-economic and cultural necessity of graduate venture creation and related business growth (Matlay, 2009). Unfortunately, however, efforts to empirically prove a positive link between entrepreneurship education and

entrepreneurial outcomes have resulted in inconclusive and even contradictory results (Charney and Libecap, 2003). From an educational perspective, Kuratko (2003:11) argues that “…entrepreneurship, or certain facets of it, can be taught… and business educators and professionals have evolved beyond the myth that entrepreneurs are born, not made”. In their review of entrepreneurship education provision, Streeter et al., (2002:3) have identified two generic models, which they labelled as „magnet‟ and „radiant‟ programmes. The magnet model of entrepreneurship education is designed to attract students to a variety of relevant courses provided by business schools. The radiant model, however, is aimed at non-business students and tent to focus upon contexts specific courses as well as specialist interest entrepreneurship. Although the radiant model is numerically dominant, both models appear to be successful in attracting large numbers of students who intend to pursue an entrepreneurial career either immediately after graduation or sometime in the future (Summers, 2000). In the UK, entrepreneurship education has become an established component of the Higher Education (HE) landscape. Hannon (2006:297) points out that “… its insertion, but not necessarily its integration, into HE has taken place over a number of decades and for different reasons and as a result of a range of political, ideological, institutional and educational drivers”. Recent research has established that the vast majority of HEIs in the UK provide some kind of entrepreneurship education, full- and/or part time and at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels (McKeown et al., 2006). Interestingly, a large proportion of entrepreneurship education courses are offered in or by business schools (see Matlay, 2005) and much of the relevant research is contextualised in business related faculties. Shane (2003:1) argues that “…the level of interest in entrepreneurship among business school students is extremely high … every university campus, it seems, has a wealth of courses about how to start and finance new business”. It is worth noting that in UK HEIs, entrepreneurship education is increasingly offered in faculties which are not directly related to business (see, for example, Matlay and Carey, 2007; Penaluna and Penaluna, 2009). Regardless of where it originates or it is provided, the quality, range and relevance of entrepreneurship courses on offer is important to the future career development of enterprise oriented students. Unfortunately, however, there is a shortage of research that links entrepreneurship education course design to the specific needs of future graduate entrepreneurs. In this context, Carter et al., (2003:33) contend that “… greater insights about the factors influencing an individual‟s choice to pursue entrepreneurial activity could lead to better designed economic and development programmes”. Similarly, Hytti and O‟Gorman (2004) highlight the positive impact of well designed entrepreneurship education upon graduate entrepreneurship and call for more and better courses to be provided at all levels of the educational system. In practice, approaches to entrepreneurship education tend to differ considerably amongst providers. Some offer single courses on new business development while others incorporate into their curricula a wide range of interrelated entrepreneurship options, such as management, finance, marketing, human resources and business plan design (Charney and Libecap, 2003). In addition, some traditional HEIs are supply driven and their provision is based upon businesses courses that are already available and could be either readily adaptable to, or relabelled as, entrepreneurship education. Post-1992 HEIs appear to be more willing to innovate or customise their entrepreneurship education and to offer a demand driven curricula that more closely reflects their students‟ specific needs (see Matlay, 2006b). Due to the

diversity inherent in entrepreneurship education, the quality of provision is more difficult to evaluate accurately. There are few longitudinal studies that investigate the quality of courses in both relative and absolute terms (see Matlay, 2008). More comparative research is needed in order to establish which courses or modules are most effective in developing enterprising graduates in the UK. In the next section we review the specialist literature that relates to enterprising graduates and their role in the UK economy.

Enterprising graduates in the UK economy In the UK, government agencies, business observers and education representatives are keen to promote entrepreneurship education as an effective way to facilitate the transition of a growing graduate population from higher education into salaried work, self-employment or new venture creation (Westhead and Matlay, 2006). With rising youth and adult unemployment, including out of work graduates, issues relating to the value of higher education and its return on investment have grown in importance and are passionately debated amongst various stakeholders. Consequently, during a time of change and uncertainty, entrepreneurship education has become a high priority imperative for government policy in the UK (Berglund and Holmgren, 2005). The ongoing debate is becoming progressively more acrimonious as devotees and critics of entrepreneurship education argue about the advantages and disadvantages accruable to various courses, delivery styles and modes of assessment (Berglund and Holmgren, 2006; From, 2006). The relevance of this type of higher education to the development of enterprising graduates has long been advocated as crucial to the socio-economic infrastructure and competitiveness of the UK economy (see, for example, Kirby and Mullen, 1990). In the late 1990s, the influential National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education set out to boost the uptake of entrepreneurship education in UK by recommending HEIs should “…consider the scope for encouraging entrepreneurship through innovative approaches to programme design (1997:201)”. More recent initiatives further encouraged the expansion of entrepreneurship education in HEIs and facilitated the creation of a dedicated organisation, the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) which was launched on 13th September 2004 in Birmingham (see Pittaway and Cope, 2007). A comprehensive review of recent research on the relevance of higher education in general and entrepreneurship education in particular, has highlighted that educational achievements exert a positive effect upon the development of enterprising graduates. For instance, Robinson and Sexton (1994) argued that higher education confers a clear advantage upon those graduates who choose self employment. According to Bates (1995), entrepreneurs with higher educational attainments tend to be more successful as business owners and their enterprises survive for longer than those of owner/managers who lacked higher educational achievement. Reynolds (1997) indicated that both survival and success rates in new ventures creation are directly linked to the educational achievements of their founders. It also emerged that those graduates who deliberately opt for entrepreneurship education modules as part of their degree requirements, tend to exhibit a high probability of becoming successful nascent entrepreneurs (Brown, 1995; Vesper and Gartner, 1996). In their seminal work, Delmar and Davidsson (2000:5) concluded that “… education probably has a positive impact on self-employment, at least in some (knowledge-intensive) industries”. These findings were perceived by some stakeholders to validate the

doctrine of the „enterprise culture‟ movement in the UK, US and elsewhere, which positions entrepreneurship education at the forefront of the „knowledge based economy‟ (see Gavron et al., 2001; Peters, 2001). Most research studies that investigated the development of enterprising graduates in the UK found positive links between entrepreneurship education and new venture creation, sustainable competitive advantage and small business longevity. An early study of graduate entrepreneurship career aspirations and destinations conducted at Stirling University provided an influential perspective on enterprising graduates as nascent entrepreneurs. Began in 1988, it comprised a main study of 5375 students from 10 universities in England and Scotland (see Cannon et al., 1988) and was later supplemented with a number of smaller, complementary surveys (see Rosa and McAlpine, 1991; Rosa, 1993; 1994). The findings showed that 9.7% of graduates became entrepreneurs within five years of graduating. Rosa (2003:441) claims that this represented “… a remarkably high figure when we consider the range of career options open to students in employment and the fact that UK students tend to be very employee oriented in their career aspirations”. It emerged that about half of the graduate entrepreneurs in the combined research sample were still trading after five years in business. Taking into consideration contemporary statistics on entrepreneurial failure in the UK, it is clear that survival rates amongst these graduate entrepreneurs was considerably higher than the national average and significantly better than nongraduate business owners (see Daly, 1991; Keeble and Walker, 1994). Focussing on Welsh universities, Edwards and Muir (2002), differentiated between „formal‟ and „informal‟ approaches to entrepreneurship education. Both styles were found to contribute in different ways to the development of enterprising students, within and outside university settings. The authors concluded that “… learning in the formal educational context is an individual development process, involves mental activity and results in general concept production … in contrast, informal learning in work-related contexts is considered to be a collaborative process leading to highly context-specific forms of reasoning and skills (Edwards and Muir, 2004:3). This suggests that a range of formal and informal learning processes need to be taken into consideration when designing entrepreneurship education for developing enterprising graduates. A complementary perspective is offered by Frank (2006) who explored the development of graduate entrepreneurship skills and knowledge at the discipline level. The author highlights the value of subject-specific provision in entrepreneurship education and recommended the development of entrepreneurial skills and knowledge in enterprising students outside traditional business school boundaries. These perspectives support Parker‟s (2004) claims that nascent entrepreneurship is largely a function of entrepreneurship skills and knowledge. According to Vollmers et al., (2001) a growing number of stakeholder perspectives also impact upon the development of entrepreneurship education curriculum, including students, educators, alumni, employers, members of the business community and government representatives. However, the full extent of stakeholder influence upon entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs is yet to be comprehensively researched (Matlay, 2009).

Stakeholder involvement in UK HEIs The „stakeholder‟ approach emerged during the mid-1980s, following the rise to prominence of strategic management theory. It had a considerable influence on

strategy formation and management of change in small, medium-sized and large organisations and it remains an important theoretical construct and practical approach within the strategic management field (Harrison et al., 2010). In the context of strategic management theory, Freeman (1984:46) identified stakeholders, as “… any group or individuals who can affect or are affected by the achievement of the organisation‟s objectives”. From a HEI perspective, Amaral and Magalhaes (2002:2) argued that a stakeholder is “… a person or entity with a legitimate interest in higher education and who, as such, acquires the right to intervene”. The catalogue of individuals who profess to have an interest in higher education in general and entrepreneurship education in particular is comprehensive. It includes a wide range of individuals, organisations and institutions as well as representatives of government, commerce and the wider community (Matlay, 2008). According to Pereira and DaSilva (2003: 673) “… universities, traditionally, have two main goals: to create and to disseminate knowledge… the creation of knowledge is done through research and its dissemination is done through education”. Thus, in the traditional university model students, institutional employees and future employers are identified as major stakeholders (cf. Koksal and Egitman, 1998). As the proportion of direct funding continues to decline, however, HEIs are increasingly forced to act „entrepreneurially‟ and seek external sources of income to balance their growing budgetary deficit (Poole, 2000). In the process of delivering „third stream‟ projects, entrepreneurial HEIs tend to enlarge as well as widen their already burgeoning membership of local, regional and national stakeholders. This is also reflected in the growing number as well as variety of individuals who can legitimately claim to be involved with, and have a direct interest in, UK HEIs (Barr, 2004). The concept of the „entrepreneurial university‟ proved popular with government, industry and community representatives as it represented a convergent stakeholders‟ approach to implementing and managing strategic change in this important sector of the UK economy. Schulte, (2004:188) recommended that “…an entrepreneurial university must undertake two tasks: it must train future entrepreneurs, persons who will found their own businesses, and also develop an entrepreneurial spirit in students in all subject areas; second, it must operate in an entrepreneurial manner itself, organizing business incubators, technology parks, and the like, involving students in these organizations and, through them, assisting students and graduates in the founding of businesses”. This approach could fit well within the governing structure and the stated mission of modern HEIs in the UK and elsewhere. In practice, most entrepreneurial universities cater to local and regional stakeholders by providing a range of business and consultancy services. Furthermore, third stream strategies pursued by entrepreneurial universities increasingly include customised services for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), which fall both within and outside traditional educational catchment boundaries (Mitra and Matlay, 2003; Etzkowitz, 2004). In his review of stakeholders‟ involvement in, and expectations of, entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs, Matlay (2009a) found that there were two main categories of parties interested in this type of higher education: (i) internal stakeholders, represented by students, teaching and research staff as well as faculty administrators and managers; and, (ii) external stakeholders, including parents, family members, alumni, employers and entrepreneurs as well as representatives of business, commerce, professional bodies, government agencies and the wider community. The interests of both internal and external stakeholders can be usefully mapped across three discrete time horizons: short-, medium- and long-term perspectives. Although

relatively constant, stakeholder perceptions can change over time and this is reflected in the intensity and length of their involvement in or influence on activities related to entrepreneurship education. Stakeholder commitment to HEIs emerged as an important determinant of their expectations related to entrepreneurship education. The author collected in-depth qualitative data from three categories of stakeholders: primary, secondary and tertiary. The author concluded that stakeholder involvement in entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs is dependent on complex and widespread inter-relationships across a range of socio-economic and political dimensions. A stakeholder matrix model has been employed in this article in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders‟ influence upon the development of enterprising graduates in UK HEIs. The methodology, analysis and discussion of emergent results are outlined in the next two sections of this paper.

Research Methodology and Sample It is generally agreed that longitudinal research serves two main purposes: (i) to establish patterns of change across a defined period of time; and (ii) to determine the direction and extent of causal relationships (see Menard, 2002; Ruspini, 2002). In addition, longitudinal research can be used to predict the direction and scale of future changes (Taris, 2000). Longitudinal research is particularly well suited to the study of individual and/or group career patterns, from the education (and/or training) stage to initial entry into the labour market and eventual exit (see Blau and Duncan, 1967). Depending upon the scope of the study, a variety of qualitative and quantitative strategies can be used in longitudinal research, either singly or jointly, as part of mixed methods approach to periodical data collection and analyses (Torestad et al., 1994). For the purpose of this research study we used telephone surveys to collect longitudinal data that related to the influence of primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders on the development of enterprising graduates in UK HEIs. The surveys were conducted annually over a ten year period (2000 to 2009) to document and evaluate 331 stakeholders‟ perceived and actual influence in the development of graduate entrepreneurs through entrepreneurship education in 36 UK HEIs. The interviews lasted between 20 and 30 minutes. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to guide the interviewer and both quantitative and qualitative information were solicited from stakeholders. For each stakeholder, the longitudinal interview data was collected and recorded electronically on preformatted forms.

Research Results and Discussion A detail analysis of the data collected over the 10 year duration of the longitudinal research study (2000 to 2009) has highlighted a number of convergent stakeholder trends that affect and define their influence on the development of graduate entrepreneurs in UK HEIs. Interestingly, emergent results would suggest that stakeholders‟ involvement and expectations in relation to entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs remained relatively constant during the 10 year period under investigation. A summary of the main findings and their implication for the development of enterprising graduates in UK HEIs is outline below:

1. Primary Stakeholder Influence Respondents in the „primary stakeholder‟ category included students, teaching and research staff as well as administrators and managers who were directly involved in various aspects of entrepreneurship education provided by the HEIs in the research sample. Primary stakeholders were represented by both full-time and part-time individuals, including students, teaching and research staff, administrators and managerial, and their involvement was direct and continuous across the academic year. Each segment of this category was perceived by respondents to make an important and direct contribution to the development of enterprising graduates. Students undertaking entrepreneurship education perceived themselves as (external) customers and their influence, both explicit and implicit, was considerable. In the short-term, full-time and part-time students represented the demand side of the entrepreneurship education equation, without which no provision was feasible or even possible. In the medium to long-term, their specific needs were important to other primary stakeholders and their feedback and contribution to the design, development and assessment of various courses were perceived as crucial. In addition, their success in completing entrepreneurship education courses, assessments and examinations were viewed by all primary stakeholders as an important initial hurdle on their way to becoming entrepreneurial graduates. It should be noted that all students involved in entrepreneurship education intended to pursue an entrepreneurial career some time after graduation. The direct involvement of teaching and research staff in all aspects of entrepreneurship education meant that their influence was considerable and widespread. The input of teaching and research staff with practical experience in new venture creation and small business management provided the realism and functional approach that scored highly in student satisfaction feedback. Entrepreneurial experience proved a valuable asset in the design, development and assessment of innovative entrepreneurship education modules, not only in business school settings but also in non-business oriented faculties. Research staff contributed aspects of their own empirical work as well as their entrepreneurship knowledge to the design and development of up-to-date modules and related case studies. Knowledge of, and access to, the latest research in entrepreneurship also rated highly in student satisfaction feedback. Administrative and managerial staff involved in this type of education provided the necessary support and guidance to both external customers (students) and internal clients (teaching and research staff). They perceived themselves as primary stakeholders and their role was acknowledged by students as well as teaching and research staff involved in entrepreneurship education. Their influence was direct and perceived as important in terms of continuity of service, availability and support. The administration of various structures and processes represented an essential aspect of entrepreneurship education routines, which contributed considerably to internal and external customer satisfaction. Occasionally, they were called upon by other stakeholders to act as intermediaries in progressing queries, solving routine problems and mitigating various discrepancies and personal difficulties related to attendance, examinations, assessments and feedback.

2. Secondary Stakeholder Influence Four main groups were identified as „secondary stakeholders‟: parents of students, alumni, entrepreneurs and future employers. These stakeholders‟ influence on developing enterprising graduates was mostly indirect and of secondary importance. For instance, parents - who were either entrepreneurs themselves or in employment - were keen to encourage their children to pursue aspects of entrepreneurship education that would prepare them for an entrepreneurial career or equip them with useful skills and knowledge to act entrepreneurially in life and/or at their workplace. The rhetoric of the entrepreneurial society appears to have convinced parents that acting entrepreneurially was crucial to success in many activities within the contemporary economy. Most parents who contributed financially towards their children‟s education felt justified to demand that entrepreneurship education prepares these students for the challenges posed by an entrepreneurial society. Some parents took a more direct approach and enquired about entrepreneurship education curriculum and assessment. They also provided feedback on their relevance and realism and made recommendations for future improvements. Others volunteered to contribute to workshops or to present cases of successful entrepreneurship, based on their personal knowledge and experience. Alumni, who benefitted from entrepreneurship education and preferred to remain involved, also emerged as secondary stakeholders. Their influence on the development of entrepreneurial graduates was experience based and offered them a practical perspective on possible future careers. Their involvement as guest speakers or workshop leaders represented an opportunity for students to interact, ask questions or debate various approaches to their proposed entrepreneurial careers. Some alumni offered work based placements in their enterprises and acted as mentors to students and/or second supervisors on dissertations and management projects or reports. Their feedback on the usefulness and realism of ongoing courses in entrepreneurship education provided valuable guidance in selective aspects of course design, development and assessment. In addition, they proved a valuable asset to teaching staff and prime choice as evaluators or judges for business plan competitions. Local or regional entrepreneurs, known to members of staff, were occasionally invited to contribute to various entrepreneurship education activities and events. They were keen to enrich the experience and widen the horizons of entrepreneurial students. They too provided a practical perspective, knowledge based guidance and work placements as well as feedback on ongoing course design and development. For them, it was important that the stock of graduate entrepreneurs entering the economy was of high quality and well skilled as well as prepared for a highly competitive career. Future employers also claimed to have an interest in developing entrepreneurial graduates who would make a positive contribution to the economy Employers wanted graduates employed in public or private organisations to posses vocational, interpersonal and transferable on joining and to acquire additional job specific knowledge and experience through induction and on-the-job training. HEIs were expected to prepare future employees for multiple careers and entrepreneurship education was often considered as a „basic requirement‟ in many industrial and sectoral contexts. A large proportion of these employers claimed to offer work placements and/or act as governors at all levels of the educational system, including HEIs.

3. Tertiary Stakeholder Influence „Tertiary stakeholders‟ comprised representatives of government, industry, commerce and the wider community. Their influence was perceived as less important remote from the design and delivery of entrepreneurship education offered in HEIs. Similarly, students felt that tertiary stakeholder influence was marginal and separate from their own drive and ambition to succeed in an entrepreneurial career. Government and its agents impacted upon entrepreneurship education mainly though a multitude of educational policies, initiatives and controls. Ongoing funding cuts were mostly considered as a negative influence even though these have forced HEIs to rethink their educational strategies and attempt to act more „entrepreneurially‟. In general, primary stakeholders felt that government driven changes in HEI strategy had negative outcomes on higher education and that the expansion of entrepreneurship education was evolutionary rather than revolutionary in nature. The proliferation of entrepreneurship oriented policies and initiatives in recent years have resulted in confusion and mistrust in government interference in education. Representatives of industry, commerce and the community also claimed to have an interest in developing enterprising graduates. In common with future employers, they expected HEIs to prepare undergraduates and postgraduates for career in industry and commerce. Interpersonal and transferable skills and competencies were often mentioned as imperative to the needs of the new economy and the competitiveness of various industries. In practical terms, however, students and teaching staff admitted that the influence of these stakeholders was weak and marginal to the development of enterprising graduates in UK HEIs.

Discussion It emerges that stakeholder attitudes, beliefs and expectations, closely reflected their socio-economic, educational and cultural position in relation to higher education in general and entrepreneurship education in particular. The involvement of respondents in entrepreneurship education as well as their influence upon various aspects of it was defined by their perceived needs and guided by their expectations of what HEIs could and/or should achieve when engaged in the development of enterprising graduates. Interestingly, stakeholders‟ involvement in entrepreneurship education offered in UK HEIs has remained relatively constant over the 10 year period under investigation. The findings of this study are consistent with previous research on this topic (see Pittaway and Cope, 2007; Matlay, 2009). The results support and extend recent research on the impact of stakeholders‟ involvement in entrepreneurship education in the UK (Gavron et al., 2001; Hannon, 2007) and elsewhere (Peters, 2001; Kuratko, 2003). Primary stakeholders emerged as the most influential group that shaped the development of enterprising graduates in UK HEIs. On the demand side, the perceived needs of students undertaking entrepreneurship education courses or modules were of primary importance to the development of enterprising graduates. Influence was exercised mainly through their formal and informal feedback and involvement in entrepreneurship education as alumni, entrepreneurs or educators - (cf. Matlay, 2009). Similarly, on the supply side, teaching and research staff directly influenced the development of enterprising graduates. This was achieved through the design, planning, delivery and assessment of innovative courses, modules and

workshops (cf. Matlay and Carey, 2008). Administrative and managerial staff was also directly involved in the supply aspect of entrepreneurship education. They provided guidance and assistance to teaching and research staff in the delivery of relevant courses and modules. Their support of students, both formal and informal, emerged as a positive contribution, which further enhanced the impact and effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in the development of enterprising graduates in UK HEIs. The characteristic mix of formal and informal interaction between primary stakeholders involved in entrepreneurship education emerged as an essential feature of the process of developing enterprising graduates in UK HEIs. It ensured that both conceptual and contextual aspects of entrepreneurship education were delivered in an interactive, dynamic and effective manner (cf. Edwards and Muir, 2004). Importantly, the intensity and frequency of primary stakeholder influences tended to vary in accordance with the temporal balance between proactive and reactive elements inherent in entrepreneurship education. Thus, entrepreneurial knowledge created, managed and disseminated at the interface level of entrepreneurship education emerged as an innovative as well as essential element in the development of graduate entrepreneurs. These results support and extend research by Pereira and DaSilva (2003) and Schulte, (2004) on the role of HEIs in the creation and dissemination of knowledge and establish entrepreneurship education as crucial to the successful development of enterprising graduates. The influence of secondary and tertiary stakeholders on the development of enterprising graduates emerged as less significant and more remote from the entrepreneurship education interface. Nonetheless, as an additional element of the entrepreneurship education process, their contribution supported and complemented the development of graduate entrepreneurs‟ human and social capital (cf. Matlay, 2008). Secondary and tertiary stakeholder influence can therefore be viewed as a motivator and facilitator of effective entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs. In this context, a wide range of stakeholder influences can impact positively on the development of enterprising graduates and complement the choice and effectiveness of entrepreneurship education provision. The influence of government and its representatives on the development of enterprising graduates could be enhanced significantly by focussing the resources allocated to UK HEIs on those aspects that make entrepreneurship education effective, demand driven and specific to the needs of enterprising graduates.

Conclusions and Recommendations The analysis of the data collected from a longitudinal research study (2000 to 2009) into the influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates has highlighted a number of interesting trends relating to their involvement in, and impact upon, entrepreneurship education provision in UK HEIs. It emerges that stakeholders‟ involvement in entrepreneurship education has remained relatively constant over the period under investigation. Their attitudes, beliefs and expectations closely reflected their position towards higher education in general and entrepreneurship education in particular. Furthermore, their involvement in entrepreneurship education and influence upon the design, delivery and assessment of relevant courses and modules was defined by their perceived needs and expectations. A wide range of stakeholders can influence the development of enterprising graduates in UK HEIs. Primary

stakeholders, including students, teaching and research staff, managers and administrators emerged as most influential in the development of enterprising graduates. Their influence, representing both demand and supply sides of entrepreneurship education, was significant and directly relevant. The influence of secondary and tertiary stakeholders, such as parents of students, alumni, entrepreneurs, future employers and representatives of government, industry, commerce and the wider community was perceived as less significant and more remote from the entrepreneurship education interface. Formal and informal interaction amongst primary stakeholders emerged as an essential feature of the process of developing enterprising graduates in UK HEIs. These exchanges ensured that relevant conceptual and contextual aspects of entrepreneurship education were delivered in an interactive, dynamic and effective manner. The intensity and frequency of primary stakeholder influences varied in accordance with the temporal balance between proactive and reactive elements inherent in entrepreneurship education. Importantly, entrepreneurial knowledge generation, management and transfer emerged as essential to the development of graduate entrepreneurs. In order to increase the relevance, effectiveness and success rate of entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs we recommend that government and its representatives focus their policies, initiatives and support measures upon specific knowledge and skills needs of students. By targeting scarce resources to support the primary stakeholder interface in UK HEIs, government agencies would ensure that taxpayers‟ money is spent responsibly and efficiently on those aspects that render entrepreneurship education effective, demand driven and specific to the future needs of enterprising graduates.

References Adnett, N., (2006), Student Finance and Widening Participation in the British Isles: Common Problems, Different Solutions, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 296-311 Alberti, F. (1999). Entrepreneurship education: scope and theory, in Salvato, C., Davidsson, P. and Persson, A., (Eds.), Entrepreneurial knowledge and learning: conceptual advances and directions for further research. JIBS research reports, 99/6, Jönköping: Jönköping International Business School. pp. 64-84. Aldrich, H.E., (2007), Organizations and Environments, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. Allen, J. and de Weert, E., (2007), What do Educational Mismatches Tell Us about Skill Mismatches: A Cross Country Analysis, European Journal of Education, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 59-73

Amaral, A. and Magalhaes, A., (2002), „The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance‟, in Amaral, A., Jones, G.A. and Karseth, B., (Eds.), Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional governance, New York: Springer Audretsch, D.B., (2007), The Entrepreneurial Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford Baharun, R. and Ahmad, F.S., (2002), „Entrepreneurship Education: A Comparison of Male and Female Students in Technical Disciplines‟, Akauntan Nasional, 9, pp30-33, September Barr, N., (2004), „Higher Education Funding‟, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20, 2, pp. 264-283 Bates, T., (1995), „Self-Employment Entry Across Industry Groups‟, Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 3, pp.143-156 Berglund, K. and Holmgren C., (2005), The process of Institutionalizing Entrepreneurship within the Educational System, Paper presented at the RENT Conference, Naples, 17-18th November Berglund, K. and Holmgren, C., (2006), At the Intersection of Entrepreneurship Education Policy and Practice: on conflicts, tensions and closures, Paper presented at the 14th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research, Stockholm, 11-13th May Blau, P. and Duncan, O.D., (1967), The American Occupational Structure, Wiley, New York Bridge, S. and McGowan, P., (2007), Relating Entrepreneurship Education to the Level of Entrepreneurship in a Population, Working Paper 027/2007, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham Brown, R., (1990), „Encouraging Enterprise: Britain‟s Graduate Enterprise Programme‟, Journal of Small Business Management, 28, 4, pp.71-77 Burke, P.J., (2002), Accessing Education: Effectively Widening Participation, Trentham Books Ltd., Stoke-on-Trent Carey, C. and Matlay, H., (2010), Characteristics of creative disciplines education: an innovative model for assessing enterprise? Industry & Higher Education, Forthcoming, November Charney, A.H. and Libecap, G.D., (2003), „The contribution of entrepreneurship education: an analysis of the Berger Program‟, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1, 3, pp. 385-418 Cannon, T., Harvey, K. and Rosa, P., (1988), The Impact of an Enterprise Initiative on the Career Aspirations of Graduates in Scotland’s Central Institutions, SEF Working Papers, University of Stirling

Connor, H. and Brown, R. (2009), The Value of Graduates and Postgraduates, The Council for Industry and Higher Education, London Curtis S.J. and Boultwood M.E., (1966), An Introductory History of English Education Since 1800, University Tutorial Press, London Daly, M., (1991), „The 1980s: A Decade of Growth in Enterprise‟, Employment Gazette, March, pp.109-134 Delmar, F. and Davidsson, P., (2000), „Where Do They Come From? Prevalence and Characteristics of Nascent Entrepreneurs‟, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12, 1, pp.1-23 Dickson, P.H. and Solomon, G.T., (2008), „Entrepreneurial selection and success: does education matter?‟, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15, 2, pp. 239-258 Edwards, L.J. and Muir, E.J., (2002), Promoting entrepreneurship at the University of Glamorgan through formal and informal learning, paper presented at the 12th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research, Kuopio, Finland, 26-28th May Edwards, L.J. and Muir, E.J., (2004), Tell me and I’ll forget; Show me and I may remember; Involve me and I’ll understand – Developing enterprise education through theory and practice, paper presented at the 14th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research, Stockholm, 11-13th May Etzkowitz, H., (2004), The evolution of the entrepreneurial university, International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 64 - 77 Frank, A.I., (2006), Developing Entrepreneurship Skills and Knowledge at the Discipline level: The case of the Built Environment, Working Paper 032/2006, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham Freeman, R.E., (1984), Strategic management: a stakeholder approach, Boston: Pitman Publishing From, J., (2006), Some critical remarks on educational issues in entrepreneurship education, Paper presented at the14th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research, Stockholm, 11-13th May

Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F., (2006), Young People and Social Change: New Perspectives, 2nd Edition, Open University Press, Maidenhead Gartner, W.B. and Vesper, K.H., (1994), „Experiments in Entrepreneurship Education: Successes and Failures‟, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 2, pp.179-187 Gavron, R., Cowling, M., Holtham, G. and Westall, A., (2001), The Entrepreneurial Society, London: Institute for Public Policy Research

Hannon, P.D., (2007), “The Journey from Student to Entrepreneur”: A Review of the Existing Research into Graduate Entrepreneurship, Working Paper 034/2007, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, A.C., Colle, R.S., and Freeman, E., 2010, Stakeholder Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Hartshorn, C. and Hannon, P.D., (2005), Paradoxes in entrepreneurship education: chalk and talk or chalk and cheese: a case approach, Education +Training, Vol. 47, No. 8/9, pp. 616-627 Hebert, F.H. and Link, A.N., (2009), A History of Entrepreneurship, Routledge, New York Hill, K., Hoffman, D. and Rex, T.R., (2005), The Value of Higher Education: Individual and Societal Benefits, Centre for Competitiveness and Prosperity Research, Tempe, Arizona Ireland, R.D. and Webb, J.W., (2007), A Cross-Disciplinary Exploration of Entrepreneurship Research, Journal of Management, Vol.33, No. 6, pp. 891-927 Keeble, D. and Walker, S., (1994), New Firms, Small Firms and Dead Firms: Spatial Patterns and Determinants in the United Kingdom, Regional Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 411-427 Kirby, D.A., (2004), Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?, Education +Training, Vol. 46, No. 8/9, pp. 510-519 Kirby, D.A. and Mullen, D., (1990), Developing Enterprising Graduates, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 301-320 Koksal, G. and Egitman, A., (998), „Planning and design of industrial engineering education quality‟, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 35, 3, pp. 639-642 Kuratko, D., 2003, Entrepreneurship Education: Emerging Trends and Challenges for the 21st Century, Coleman Foundation White Paper Series Lancaster, L.C. and Stillman, D., (2002), When generations collide: who they are, why they clash, how they solve the generation puzzle, Harper Collins, New York Landström, H. and Sexton, D., (2000), Remaining Issues and Suggestions for Further Research, in Landström, H. and Sexton, D., (Eds.) Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 435-443. Li, J., Zhang, Y. and Matlay, H., (2003), „Entrepreneurship Education in China‟, Education and Training, 45, 8/9, pp.495-505 Macdonald, G. and Hursh, D., (2006), Twenty-first century schools: knowledge, networks and new economies, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam

Macerinskiene, I. and Vaiksnoraite, B., (2006), The Role of Higher Education to Economic Development, Management, Vol. 2, No. 11, pp. 82-90 Matlay, H., (2001), „Strategic Issues in Vocational Education and Training in Central and Eastern Europe‟, Education and Training, 2001, 43, 8/9, pp.395-404 Matlay, H., (2005), „Entrepreneurship Education in UK Business Schools: Conceptual, Contextual and Policy Considerations‟, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12, 4, pp.627-643 Matlay, H., (2006a), „Entrepreneurship Education: More Questions than Answers?‟, Education and Training, 48, 5, pp.293-295 Matlay, H., (2006b), Researching Entrepreneurship and Education, Part 2: What Is Entrepreneurship Education and Does it Matter?, Education and Training, 48, 8/9, pp.704-718 Matlay, H., 2008, „The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes‟, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15, 2, pp. 382396 Matlay, H., 2009, „Entrepreneurship Education in the UK: A Critical Analysis of Stakeholder Involvement and Expectations‟, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 2009, 16, 2, pp.355-368 Matlay, H. and Carey, C., 2007, „Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a longitudinal perspective‟, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14, 2, pp. 252-263 Matlay, H. and Carey, C., 2008, The Impact of Stakeholder Involvement upon Entrepreneurship Education Outcomes in the UK: A Critical Perspective, Paper presented at the ICSB Conference, Halifax, Canada, June McKeown, J., Millman, C., Sursani, R.S., Smith, K., and Martin, L.M., 2006. Graduate entrepreneurship education in the United Kingdom, Education + Training, Vol. 48, No. 8/9, pp. 597-613 Menard, S., (2002), Longitudinal Research, 2nd Edition, Sage Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA. Mitra, J. and Matlay, H., (2004), Entrepreneurial and vocational education and training: lessons from Eastern and Central Europe. Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 53-61 Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J., Eds., (2005), Educating the Net Gen, EDUCAUSE, Washington, DC. Parker, S., (2005), The Economics of Entrepreneurship: What We Know and What We Don‟t, Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-54

Penaluna, A. and Penaluna, K., (2009), Assessing Creativity: Drawing from the Experience of the UK‟s Creative Design Educators, Education + Training, Vol. 51, No. 8/9, pp. 718-732 Pereira, M.A. and DaSilva, M.T., 2003, Stakeholders in University Education, Paper presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society, Atlanta, GE, April Peters, M., (2001), „Education, Enterprise Culture and the Entrepreneurial Self: A Foucauldian Perspective‟, Journal of Education Enquiry, 2, 2, pp.58-71 Pittaway, L. and Cope, J., (2007), Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.479–510. Pratt, G. and Poole, D., (2000), „International strategies as a response to market forces: directions and trends‟, Journal of Institutional Research in Australia, 7, 1, pp. 9-25 Reay, D., Davies, J., David, M. and Ball, S., (2001), Choices of Degree or Degrees of Choice? Class, Race and the Higher Education Choice Process, Sociology, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 855–874 Reynolds, P.D., (1997), „Who Starts New Firms? Preliminary Explorations of Firmsin-Gestation‟, Small Business Economics, 9, pp.449-462 Robinson, P.B. and Sexton, E.A., (1994), „The Effect of Education and Experience on Self-Employment Success‟, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 141-156 Rosa, P., (1993), „Family Background and Entrepreneurial Activity in British Graduates‟, in Atkin, R., Chell, E. and Mason, C., (Eds.), New Directions in Small Business Research, Aldershot: Gower, pp.36-55 Rosa, P., (1994), The Long-Term Supply of Graduate Entrepreneurs: Insights from a Scottish Study, Report to the New Venture Team, Scottish Enterprise, Centre for Entrepreneurship, Glasgow: University of Sterling Rosa, P., (2003), „Hardly Likely to Make the Japanese Tremble‟, International Small Business Journal, 21, 4, pp.435-457 Rosa, P. and McAlpine, A., (1991), „Graduate Career Orientation Towards Enterprise‟, in Davies, L. and Gibb, A., (Eds.), Recent Research in Entrepreneurship, Aldershot: Gower, pp.73-105 Ruspini, E., (2002), An Introduction to Longitudinal Research, Routledge, London Schulte, P., (2004), The entrepreneurial university: a strategy for institutional development, Higher Education in Europe, Vol.29, No.2, pp. 187-191

Scott, P. (2009) Access in Higher Education in Europe and North America: Trends and Developments. Paper presented at the UNESCO Forum on Higher Education in the European Region, 21-24 May 2009, Bucharest, Romania Shane, S., (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual – Opportunity Nexus, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Seavoy, R., (2006), An Economic History of the United States, Routledge, London Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S. and Tarabisky, A., (2002), The State of Entrepreneurship Education in the United States: A National Survey and Analysis, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 65-86 Solomon, G.T. and Fernald, L.W., (1991), „Trends in Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship Education in the United States‟, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15, 1, pp.25-39 Streeter, D.H., Jaquette, J.P. and Hovis, K., 2002, University-wide entrepreneurship education: alternative models and current trends, Working Paper WP 2002-02, New York, Cornell University: Department of Applied Economics and Management Summers, D.F., (2000), The Formation of Entrepreneurial Intentions, Garland Publishing Inc., New York Taris, T.W., (2000), A Primer in Longitudinal Data Analysis, Sage Publications Ltd, London Teichler, U., (2007), Confirming conventional wisdom and contributing to new insights: the results of a comparative study on graduate employment and work, in U. Teichler, (Ed.), Careers of University Graduates, Views and Experiences in Comparative Perspectives, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht pp. 271–282 Thompson, K.W., (2009), Underemployment Perceptions, Job Attitudes, and Outcomes: An Equity Theory Perspective, The Academy of Management Annual Meeting: The Academy of Management Proceedings Torestad, B., Magnusson, D., Bergman, L.R. and Rudinger, G., (1994), Problems and Methods in Longitudinal Research: Stability and Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Twenge, J. M., (2006), Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled and More Miserable than Ever Before, Free Press, New York Usher, A., 2009, Ten Years Back and Ten Years Forward: Developments and Trends in Higher Education in Europe Region, Paper presented at the UNESCO Forum on Higher Education in the Europe Region, 21-24 May 2009, Bucharest, Romania

van der Wende, M.C., (2007), Internationalization of higher education in the OECD countries: challenges and opportunities, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 274-289 Vesper, K.H. and Gartner, W.B., (1996), Measuring Progress in Entrepreneurship Education, Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Association Meeting, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 9-14 Warner, D. and Palfreyman, D., (Eds.), (2001), The State of UK Higher Education: Managing Change and Diversity, Open University Press, Buckingham Westhead, P. and Matlay, H., (2006), Skills Associated with Employment Positions in SMEs and Favourable Attitudes towards Self-Employment: Longitudinal Evidence from Students Who Participated in the Shell Technology Enterprise Programme, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 93-124 Zemke, R., Raines, C. and Filipczak, B., (2000), Generations at Work: managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace, AMA Publication, New York