V olume 23 Issue 2 Ar ticle 6 
A ugust 2021 
International Reflections on the Challenges of Entr epr eneurial International Reflections on the Challenges of Entr epr eneurial 
E ducation W orking with Small and Medium-Siz ed Enterprises E ducation W orking with Small and Medium-Siz ed Enterprises 
Aldo V alencia 
Ma ynooth Univ ersity , Milab, Design Inno v ation Depar tment, Kildar e, Ir eland , aldo.v alencia@mu.ie 
Darr yl Humble 
Nor thumbria Univ ersity , Depar tment of Social Sciences, Newcastle, UK 
P aul Do yle 
T echnological Univ ersity Dublin, ASCNet Resear ch Gr oup, Dublin, Ir eland 
Dimitr a Skoumpopoulou 
Nor thumbria Univ ersity , Newcastle Business School, Newcastle, UK 
F ollow this and additional works at: https:/ /www .ebrjournal.net/home 
 P ar t of the Business Commons 
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation 
V alencia, A., Humble, D ., Do yle, P ., & Skoumpopoulou, D . (2021). International Reflections on the 
Challenges of Entr epr eneurial E ducation W orking with Small and Medium-Siz ed Enterprises. E conomic 
and Business Re view , 23 (2). https:/ /doi.or g/10.15458/2335-4216.1011 
This Original Ar ticle is br ought t o y ou for fr ee and open access b y E conomic and Business Re view . It has been 
accepted for inclusion in E conomic and Business Re view b y an authoriz ed edit or of E conomic and Business 
Re view . 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
International Reflections on the Challenges of
Entrepreneurial Education Working with Small and
Medium-Sized Enterprises
Aldo Valencia
a,
*, Darryl Humble
b
, Paul Doyle
c
, Dimitra Skoumpopoulou
d
a
Maynooth University, Milab, Design Innovation Department, Kildare, Ireland
b
Northumbria University, Department of Social Sciences, Newcastle, UK
c
Technological University Dublin, ASCNet Research Group, Dublin, Ireland
d
Northumbria University, Newcastle Business School, Newcastle, UK
Abstract
With the European Council looking to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to help support the strategic goal of
increasingsmallandmedium-sizedenterprise(SME)activitythroughincreasedentrepreneurialeducation,wereflecton
the challenges facing both HEIs and SMEs through the lens of the European Commission's Horizon 2020 funded
research and innovation staff exchange project ‘Global Entrepreneurial Talent Management 3’ (GETM3). This research
generated data during the three-year duration of the project and through a mixed-methods approach. The effectiveness
ofentrepreneurialeducationagainstthisstrategicrequirement andthebarriers whichneedtobeovercometoachieveit
are considered. We observed that common ground between academia and SMEs is favoured where partnerships are
interactive, agile and flexible. We finalise this paper by offering a series of recommendations and guidelines to help
HEIs work more closely together to fuel further entrepreneurial activity.
Keywords: Higher education, Small and medium-sized enterprise, Entrepreneurship, Multidisciplinary research,
Entrepreneurial education
JEL classification: I23
Introduction
I
n March 2000, the European Council met in
Lisbon to agree on a new strategic goal: “to
become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-
based economy in the world capable of sustainable
economicgrowthwithmoreandbetterjobsandgreater
social cohesion.” (European Council, 2000) Central
to this goal was the creation of a small and me-
dium-sized enterprise (SME) friendly environ-
ment to support innovative business practices,
and the promotion of an entrepreneurial culture,
as mechanisms to help facilitate this trans-
formation. In 2010, the European Commission
(EC) published a 10-year strategic plan for smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth (European
Commission, 2010), which identified entrepre-
neurship as an essential focus for educational
curricula within the EU member states. In the
report, SMEs were identified as being battered
due to globalisation and a growing economic
crisis, requiring support from both the commis-
sion and educational institutes to help rejuvenate
themthroughthedevelopmentofentrepreneurial
culture.
To consider the effectiveness of entrepreneurial
education within the context of the SME, and to
extract recommendations for future activity, we
devised a series of key research questions. Using a
qualitative methodology, we worked within the EU
Received 30 January 2020; accepted 2 April 2021.
Available online 19 August 2021.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aldo.valencia@mu.ie (A. Valencia).
https://doi.org/10.15458/85451.1011
2335-4216/© 2021 School of Economics and Business University of Ljubljana. This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

funded Global Entrepreneurial Talent Management
(GETM3) project. This is a multi-cultural, multidis-
ciplinary project drawing on expertise in academia
and SMEs across Europe and South Korea.
“GETM3isaEuropeanUnionResearchInnovation,and
Staff Exchange (RISE) project investigating the HRD im-
plications of the way existing and future talent can be
managedatwork,harnessingtheentrepreneurialattitudes
and skills of young people” (Pearce et al., 2019) The
projectisaV1millionEurosmultidisciplinaryproject
thatbringstogetheracademicandSMEinsightsfrom
participants in five countries (Ireland, UK, Slovenia,
Poland, South Korea), with eight academic institutes
andeightSMEs(includingtheIrishSMEAssociation
(ISME). The project co-ordinates over 100 members
fromvariousdisciplinesthroughatotalof270month-
long international secondments, organising ‘sand-
pits’ quarterly in each participant country to review
entrepreneurship within each national context.
GETM3asaprojectprovidesauniqueopportunityto
exam the critical focus of this paper, to review the
state of multidisciplinary entrepreneurial education,
and to discuss the requirements of SMEs, their
experience, expectations and requirements of entre-
preneurship, all within a diverse cultural environ-
ment.TheinclusionofSouthKoreawithintheproject
offered an additional cultural dimension potentially
quitedistinctfromaEuropeancontext.
The GETM3 sandpit model uniquely brings
togetheracademicsandSMEsfromacrosstheproject
to meet in one of five partner countries for about a
week on a rotating basis every three months. These
‘sandpit’ events are a series of discussions, in-
terviews, meetings and visits with other academics
and local SMEs to discuss entrepreneurship and
talent management. Taking advantage of these
collaborative sessions in each of the ten sandpits
2017e2020, the authors conducted participatory
workshops,focusgroups,semi-structuredinterviews,
informal discussions and meetings with the GETM3
stakeholders(academicinstitutes,students,SMEs)to
addressthefollowingkeyresearchquestions:
1. Does an agreed understanding of entrepre-
neurship within academia and SMEs exist?
2. Does the SME community have a shared
expectation of entrepreneurship education?
3. What are the characteristics of successful HEI/
SME partnerships?
4. What factors support successful entrepreneur-
ship education?
Using each sandpit location as a specific cultural
reference point, we aimed to explore the national
perspective on each of these themes, seeking
commonality of understanding, approach and
requirement across the GETM3 stakeholders. As
members of the GETM3 project, the authors’ own
expertise covers a diverse range of academic disci-
plines such as computer science, social science,
design entrepreneurship and information systems.
Their academic experience and responsibilities
include curriculum development and innovation
within SME and non-governmental organisation
(NGO) industry contexts, as well as management
and leadership experience in international partner-
ships in Asia and Europe (Lillis& Doyle, 2017). The
authors also have over 40 years combined industry
experience working with SME and NGO organisa-
tions, providing both industry and academic per-
spectives on entrepreneurship.
In this paper, we use sandpit discussions to
exploreentrepreneurshipfrommultiplestakeholder
perspectives and consider how well academic in-
stitutes are performing in servicing the SME
requirement. We begin by reviewing the state of
entrepreneurship education within the context of
HEIs and SMEs, exploring the academic challenge
in supporting the goals of the EU in creating
entrepreneurial cultures within curricula, and
matching the expectations of the SME as significant
stakeholders in this relationship. We present rec-
ommendations for HEIs which can fuel SMEs
engagement in the future. In section two, we briefly
review the literature on entrepreneurship, entre-
preneurial intention, value models and culturalism
to understand existing theory. In section three, we
describe the methodology employed, section four is
a report of our findings and results, followed by
section five, where we discuss these findings in
more detail and make recommendations, and sec-
tion six provides a summary conclusion and sug-
gests areas for further research.
1 Literature review
Considering the importance of creating an entre-
preneurialculturewithintheECstrategy,itisworth
considering how entrepreneurship emerges. While
much of the early literature has focused on entre-
preneurial intention (Bird, 1988), seeking to under-
stand the decision process that leads people from
intention to action, more recent literature looks at
valuesandmotivationsinentrepreneurship(Fayolle
et al., 2014). When it comes to culture, the idea of
cognitivemodelshasbeendiscussed as afactorthat
significantly impacts intention to start new busi-
nesses (Busenitz & Lau, 1996), and that venture
creation decision making may include cognitive
scripts that are cross-cultural (Mitchell et al., 2000).
132 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:131e140

With entrepreneurship seen as a strategic imper-
ative for increased economic activity within the EC,
the focus has been to look to Higher Education In-
stitutions (HEIs) to become a significant source of
entrepreneurial development in Europe. But with
many definitions to choose from, entrepreneurship
as a term may have subtle or substantial differences
in meaning to different groups: “entrepreneurship is
about taking risk” (Knight, 1921), “someone who dem-
onstrates initiative and creative thinking, is able to
organise social and economic mechanisms to turn re-
sources and situations to practical account and accepts
risk and failure” (Hisrich, 1990), and “is the practice of
starting new organisations or revitalising mature orga-
nisations, particularly new businesses generally in
response to identified opportunities.” (Onuoha, 2007).
Given the proliferation of definitions, we propose
that for this paper that “entrepreneurship eor entre-
preneurial behaviour-could be defined as the discovery,
evaluationandexploitationofanopportunity”(Shane&
Venkataraman, 2000), which articulates a definition
which canapply tothe creation ofanewventure,or
activity within an SME.
In addition to the vast array of definitions, multi-
ple models exist which describe the process and
conditions under which entrepreneurship intention
turns to action. For example, historical research has
focusedonthetraitsoftheindividual(McClelland&
MacClelland,1961),demographicvariables,suchas
age/gender/education(Reynoldsetal.,1994)andthe
useofsocialcognitiveapproaches(Bandura,2001)to
explain entrepreneurship (Hmieleski & Baron,
2009). With multiple models to choose from,
educational approaches to entrepreneurship also
differ based on the model to which they align.
There are numerous case-studies demonstrating
varying pedagogies, including action-based entre-
preneurship education in Sweden (Rasmussen &
Sørheim,2006),theapplicationofdesignthinkingas
a means for promoting entrepreneurial skills (Valet
al., 2017) and the proposal that a perspective of
“entrepreneurship as an everyday practice” should be
adopted (Blenker et al., 2012). Blenker et al. suggest
that an individualistic teaching approach should be
adopted rather than considering entrepreneurial
education as universalistic. Jones and English (2004)
describe a student-centric learning approach
arguing that a different learning environment is
required to support the study of entrepreneurship
withinanHEIsetting.Thereisagrowingcallfornot
only a new approach to entrepreneurial education,
but also a new paradigm (Gibb, 2002).
Attempts to measure entrepreneurial education's
effectiveness suffer from a lack of definition of a
criterion against which to measure. Using the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
(MBNQA) evaluation, Vesper and Gartner (1997)
conclude that additional criteria are required
against which we want to evaluate. A more recent
study (Liu et al., 2020) draws on the Triangulation
model, looking at measuring improvements in
competencies and reducing barriers to entrepre-
neurial intention as measures of effectiveness. In
this paper's context, the important criterion for
entrepreneurial education is the effectiveness of
entrepreneurship education in support of SMEs.
This aligns with the objective of the “promote
entrepreneurship” EC policy, which requires that
those pre-disposed to create new ventures are
supported and encouraged to do so, and that
increasing numbers of students should start
considering this option (Li~ nan et al., 2011).
Much of the focus on entrepreneurial education
and discussion is focused on stimulating entrepre-
neurial behaviour in the context of new venture
creation (Raposo & Pac ̧o, 2011). However, existing
SMEs can also benefit from HEI entrepreneurial
education with enterprise education centred on
developing enterprising people with an attitude of
self-reliance. Kompf (2012) and Shockley (2009)
further suggest that entrepreneurship and enter-
prise education should be separated, with the
former being taught to individuals seeking to create
a business and the latter being delivered across
HEIs. It has also been proposed that learning for
entrepreneurship within HEIs must take place
outside of the classroom environment in a more
experiential setting, challenging many of the peda-
gogical approaches currently in use (Rae, 2010).
SMEs are uniquely positioned to provide experi-
ential environments to facilitate learning, allowing
thestudenttoworkonreal-world,tangibleproblems
withinanentrepreneurialenvironment.Higginsand
Elliott (2011) suggest that the learning should be ac-
tion-oriented, thus helping students become practi-
tioners,andaddthat “reallife”cannotbeadequately
taught using formal modes of passive education,
whichareunlikelytohaveasignificantimpactonthe
developmentofpotentialentrepreneurs.WithSMEs
withintheEuropean economic zone makingup 99%
of the 16 million companies in existence and ac-
counting for more than two thirds of the total work-
force, there are significant opportunities for HEIs to
engage with meaningful experiential learning activ-
itiesaspartofentrepreneurialeducation.
2 Methodology
This research is based on qualitative data gener-
ated through a mixed methods approach (Hesse-
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:131e140 133

Biber, 2010) in which academics and SME stake-
holdersworkedtogether,overthe3-yeardurationof
the GETM3 project, to develop an understanding of
entrepreneurial education and the role of HEIs in
talent development. From the outset, the core
approach of the GETM3 project was a commitment
toparticipatoryworkshops,referredtoas ‘sandpits’,
and the importance of capturing rich, detailed
qualitative data (Geertz, 1973) that would support
the development of new knowledge, shared under-
standing and innovative approaches to entrepre-
neurial education.
Participatory workshops, of the kind used here,
draw on methods developed in participatory rural
appraisal (PRA) approaches in the 1970s (Chambers,
1994; Mukherjee, 1993) in which groups of stake-
holders are supported to work together to develop
solutions to problems and issues at a local level.
Reflecting on the initial PRA approach in the global
South, Chambers (2015) captures the main thrust of
the approach:“In PRA, outsiders convene and facili-
tate.Localpeoplearethemainactors.Itisthey,typi-
cally in small groups, who map, diagram, observe,
analyse and act” in relation to “natural resource
management, agriculture, programmes for equity,
empowerment, rights and security, community-level
planningandactionandparticipatorystatistics”(p.31).
Such an approach provided a platform and inspi-
rationfortheparticipatorysandpitsusedinGETM3.
However, instead of ‘outsiders’ facilitating group
activities,sandpitsweredevelopedandfacilitatedby
the GETM3 team as inclusive multi-stakeholder
events. In most cases, sandpits lasted for five days
and involved a range of participatory activities,
including: project planning, concept development,
visual mapping, visualehaptic activities, scenario
building, interactive exercises, best practice model-
ling and case study capture. In addition, more con-
ventionalqualitativemethodsofdatacollectionwere
employed, including semi-structured interviews
(Kvale, 1996) and digital qualitative surveys (Braun
et al., 2020; de Vaus, 2002).
Whilst participatory workshops were constructed
as ways to engage often vulnerable or excluded
stakeholders in project development and delivery,
there has been a shift in recent years to recognising
the potential role of participatory workshops as a
source of data collection in their own right
(Ørngreen & Levinsen, 2017) and in a variety of
contexts. Ahmed and Asraf (2018), for example,
recognises the ability of such an approach to pro-
vide (a) spaces for facilitated engagement, (b) space
to work with multiple stakeholders, (c) support for
sustained researcher observation as well as (d) op-
portunities for participant observation.
As a result, each sandpit generated tangible out-
puts, including sandpit reports as well as notes and
reflections, audio-video materials, visual maps and
diagrams and interactive resources. Furthermore,
those participating in sandpits were involved in
one-to-one qualitative interviews in which they
were asked to reflect on the themes of the project,
theirlearninganddevelopmentandallparticipants.
As a condition of involvement in the project, they
were asked to complete semi-structured online
surveys to capture in detail their own learning and
capacity building as a result of involvement in the
project.
In total, there were ten sandpits (two in the UK,
three in Ireland, one in Poland, three in Slovenia
andthreeinSouthKorea)eachwithbetween25and
60 participants with academic and SMEs present in
allsandpits.Eachsandpitadoptedaspecificproject-
relatedthemerelatedtotalentmanagementandthe
roleofSMEs.Toparticipateinsandpits,prospective
participants were provided with project information
sheets and were asked to complete data consent
forms relating to all sandpit activities. All partici-
pants were given the right to withdraw from the
project at any point. In keeping with the European
Commission's expectations, all project data are,
where possible, anonymised and stored electroni-
cally and accessible only by the project team. The
GETM3 project has received ethical clearance from
all HEIs involved in the project and meets the
stringentEUethicsanddatagovernanceprocedures
set out in the funding terms.
The outcome of this project is a wealth of quali-
tative material that captures not only the experi-
ences of workshop participation, but of the
challenges academic and SME staff see concerning
entrepreneurial education. In keeping with the
qualitative nature of this project, the findings and
reflections included in this paper emerge from the
extensive data set generated through this project as
well as the reflection of the authors,all of whom are
coremembersoftheGETM3projectteamwhohave
participated in sandpits.
3 Results
The following section outlines the results for each
of the key research questions identified in the
introduction. These emerged from three years of
qualitative data collection and analysis. All data
were collated and, if necessary, translated into En-
glish. An iterative thematic analysis approach was
employed to reveal the emerging themes (Miles &
Huberman, 1994), patterns and deviations (Braun&
Clarke, 2006). The initial coding and thematic
134 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:131e140

mapping were developed by two researchers in
tandem and then reviewed by the other two. The
analysis comprised close review of the various ma-
terials, coding meaningful fragments and framing
codes into themes and subthemes. Indicative quo-
tations from the data were assigned to each sub-
theme. These were then discussed to identify
experiences and reflections in the context of these
researchquestions.It isimportantto notethatthese
results are interrelated and overlapping (Yin, 2011),
as is often the case with qualitative data. The key
findings are summarised in Table 1.
3.1 There is No common language, No common
understanding
“The problem with the term entrepreneurship is that I
don't know any two people who would agree with its
definition. Is there a difference between entrepre-
neurial behaviour, entrepreneurialism, entrepreneur-
ship or is it all the same thing? … it's all too vague”
(Polish academic interviewee, 2017)
A central finding that emerges in all the discus-
sions is the challenge of language and etymology;
whatdowemeanbytheconceptsweusetodescribe
this kind of education and how are different con-
cepts understood by different participants. Ulti-
mately,wefindthatentrepreneurialeducationisnot
a single unified, homogenous activity as there is no
agreement on what it is trying to achieve. The terms
are many and the understanding is diverse. Our
results demonstrate that there is a need for a com-
mon agreed language for this area of activity.
3.2 There is No common requirement from SMEs
“We just need people who can do the job and grow
with us!” (Korean SME focus group participant,
2019)
Here we find that there are many assumptions
made by HEIs on what SMEs want, what they need
and, as a result, what HEIs should deliver. Through
further interrogation, however, we ascertain that
SMEs either want very different things or, as was
the case with several GETM3 partners, what they
want is particularly vague. The above quote dem-
onstrates, with some frustration, what a particular
SMEleaderreallywantedfromaHEIgraduateafter
muchdiscussionaboutentrepreneurattitudes,skills
anddispositions.AnimplicationofthisisthatSMEs
are often unable to articulate their needs in a way
that HEIs can understand and support.
3.3 Common ground emerges where partnerships
are interactive
“Where it works, it really works. But that requires us
[SMEs] to work with you [HEIs] properly, over a long
period of time to establish a real understanding and
then we can get them [students]into the right frame of
mind … to make a difference.” (Slovenian SME
interviewee, 2018)
Here it is clear that success in entrepreneurial
education emerges through effective partnerships
between HEIs and SMEs and, as a result, between
the SME and the student. An effective, open and
interactive three-way partnership of this kind
overcomes the challenges of language to create op-
portunities for genuine SME requirements to
emerge in real time, rather than in a preconceived
vacuum. At its core, what we find here is that we
need to move from an abstract discussion or un-
derstanding of entrepreneurial education to a
practical engagement between the education and
the real-world.
3.4 Agility and flexibility in education supports
effective partnerships
“If we weren't so hamstrung by module descriptors,
learning outcomes and one size fits all approaches to
education then we'd be able to be more responsive in
how we support our students and, ultimately, the
businesses that they work with.” (Irish academic
interviewee, 2019)
Table 1. Key research questions and results.
Research Question Result
Does an agreed understanding of entrepreneurship within
academia and SMEs exist?
3.1 There is no common language, no common understanding.
Does the SME community have a shared expectation of
entrepreneurship education?
3.2 There is no common requirement from SMEs.
What are the characteristics of successful HEI/SME partnerships? 3.3 Common ground emerges where partnerships are interactive.
What factors support successful entrepreneurship education? 3.4 Agility and flexibility in education support effective
partnerships.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:131e140 135

To make entrepreneurial education work effec-
tively we need agile systems and processes within
HEIs. A single module, one-size-fits-all approach to
the uniform construction of modules/units, pro-
grammes, assessments and timetables, all moni-
tored through key performance indicators (KPIs),
limits the amount of what one of our members of
theacademicteamdescribedas, ‘educationalwiggle
room’. Our contention here is that we need agile
education, not a single model, which can match the
changing requirements across disciplines, cultures,
SME requirements and domains. There has to be
flexibility and contextual education which may
mean there is no one solution, but rather a broader
educational approach that permeates HEI ap-
proaches to developing and delivering entrepre-
neurial education.
Whilst this section has outlined four key interre-
lated findings that have emerged from GETM3
sandpits, formal interviews and informal conversa-
tionsthatarecriticalofcurrentpractice,thereisalso
awealthoffindingsthatcapturewhatworksandthe
positive work that is happening within between
HEIs and SMEs. The GETM3 project is an example
of a successful initiative that brings together aca-
demics and SMEs to discuss best practices and to
share experiences. The diversity of approaches and
varying levels of success underpin the findings
presented.
4 Discussion
As demonstrated in the previous section, the key
findings from the GETM3 project have all demon-
strated a disconnect at the heart of entrepreneurial
education,irrespectiveoflocationandcontext.What
emerges from these findings, however, are the im-
plications for practice and how HEIs move forward
in the construction of entrepreneurial education.
Therefore,thefollowingdiscussionpicksuponeach
point, exploring these challenges in more detail and
exploring how, through an evidence-based
rethinking of the processes and practices of entre-
preneurial education, we can respond to these
challenges. In doing so, we support the work of
SMEsmoreholistically.Eachofthefollowingpoints
offers reflections on the way forward and presents a
contention or proposal for further development.
4.1 The need for a common language
We have shown in the literature that there are
multipledefinitionsforentrepreneurship.There are
even different variations of the term, which may
have subtle differences when used. With the litera-
ture trying repeatedly to define this term, we sense
we are working with a shifting understanding of
something with no definitive definition within
academia If so, how can we assume there is con-
sistency within SMEs, government or even the
general population of what these terms mean in
practice. As discussed throughout the project, it is
important to recognise that entrepreneurship has
long been the preserve of business and manage-
ment studies and that this is something that has
potentially shaped the way we define it.
The implications of this, however, is how we turn
a loosely defined concept into a module, pro-
gramme or, more broadly, a set of pedagogical
practices. If we allow multiple definitions, then how
can we agree what we are trying to achieve within
an educational context? It is this challenge that
scholars such as Val (2017), Blenker et al. (2012) and
Rasmussen (2006), amongst others, are seeking to
address. A core reflection of the GETM3 project is
that if we have multiple goals based on our under-
standing of what this isallabout, it stands to reason
that we will attempt to achieve that goal using
different means and different pedagogical ap-
proaches.Thereisclearevidencefromtheliterature
that we are doing exactly that - trying to achieve a
goal which is unclear, diverse and shifting. So how
can we possibly succeed?
A common language provides a common basis of
communicating requirements. Terms without com-
mon understanding which are open to interpreta-
tion provide false states of comfort which when
actualised can result in outcomes vastly different
from one party's expectations. If entrepreneurial
educationisto delivery on its full potential, then we
need to be clear what the educations requirements
areandarenot.Todothiswe,asamultidisciplinary
sector, require more clarity in terminology.
4.2 The need for nuanced understanding of what
SMEs are looking for
Even if the academic community within business
management, and outside of business management
agreeswiththeseterms,thenextthingtoconsideris
if this has anything to do with supporting the SME.
As stated already, SMEs need also to agree on what
they need, which in many cases may not be entre-
preneurial traits of talents, but possibly skills that
can be honed like teamwork, initiative, communi-
cation, ingenuity, cultural awareness and problem-
solving. Some SMEs, however, may need more
specific behaviours to reinvent their business
136 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:131e140

model, seeking new opportunities in the market-
place and creating new value for customers. It is
more likely that an SME will define their re-
quirementsbasedonspecificcompetencies,traitsor
behaviours, rather than using terms like
entrepreneurship.
If the goal is to support the SME through entre-
preneurial education, then the variability in the
definition of terms, the variability in the needs of
SMEs and a lack of a common language to describe
all of this must be resolved. We need to be much
more precise in our education goals or we will
continue to observe a mismatch between educa-
tional activity and SME requirements.
It is also worth considering that entrepreneurial
education does not have to be a single course or
programme.The skills requiredto support the SME
may be already built within many courses and
modules. Suppose the aims of the EU are solely for
business creation. In that case, there are already
existing courses that focus on this as a specific
outcome, which some might describe as enterprise
education rather than entrepreneurial education. It
couldeven be arguedthat entrepreneurial intention
converted to entrepreneurial action in the form of
innovative business creation is, in fact, the correct
articulation of the EU requirement. With an agreed
objective, we could then begin creating fit-for-pur-
pose education programmes that have measurable
key performance indicators.
What this reflects is a broader challenge facing
HEI academics involved in real-world link up edu-
cation. As educators and GETM3 project members,
much of our planning for employer-focused edu-
cation is based on assumptions about the market,
the requirements of future employers and, in the
case of entrepreneurial education, the expectations
of SMEs who, we all believe, have specificaimsand
needs. Yet these needs and expectations are elusive
and difficult to pin down. Whilst this reflects the
broaderchallengesoftheHEIindustrypartnerships
(see Dada& Fogg, 2016; Decter et al., 2011; Huggins
et al., 2008 for examples) are a specific challenge in
working with SMEs.
A potential reason for this over-complication lies
in the tendency to conflate entrepreneurship and
enterprise education (Kompf, 2012; Shockley, 2009)
and, as was discussed throughout the project, the
drive to create business construction and product
development initiatives (approaches prominent in
design, engineering and business programmes).
What such an approach does is drive entrepre-
neurship through a specific disciplinary context
ratherthanthroughabroadersetofentrepreneurial
traits or competencies.
4.3 Dynamic partnerships are key
Whenwedonothavecommonterms,orwhenwe
are not sure of the requirements, then when it
comes to working with SMEs, we need to get stu-
dents into the SME workplace. Here they can start
to experience a sample of a real-world environment
and we can begin to build, in real-time, our own
knowledge and understanding of settings, expecta-
tions, needs and requirements, essentially adopt an
action learning approach (Revans, 1982) to place-
ments and other forms of experiential learning.
What GETM3 stakeholders have demonstrated is
that placement programmes as work-based activ-
ities are excellent for demonstrating requirements
which are often poorly articulated. Notions such as
‘company fit’, for example, are frequently used
phrasesbutbecomeobviouswhenworkingwithina
company. By having the academic team involved in
a review of placement with the company and the
student, relevant feedback can be obtained on how
wellsuitedthestudentsaretothenextstepsintheir
career.
Industry mentoring is also another way of
bridging the gap between the student and their ca-
reers. The SAER (old Gaelic for craftsman) industry
mentorship program at the Technological Univer-
sityDublinisanexemplarofearlycareermentoring
for students.120 students are being mentored by 60
industry managers who are being trained by the
HEI to help students understand the work envi-
ronments ahead of them and to help them focus on
how to be successful in the future. This is an
example of a non-practice-based dynamic partner-
ship where students, HEIs and industry can work
together to create dynamic relationships.
Because industries and companies can have
different needs, successful partnerships are those
thatbringmultipleSMEsintotheacademicworldto
see how students are educated. But they also bring
academics into industry to see what the students
will doonce theygraduate, what skills they need, in
what areas they are strong, and what areas need
additional focus. We must blur the lines and create
value-added partnerships where students are better
prepared for their future careers, institutes have a
better understandingof the SME requirements, and
SMEs provide feedback on their needs.
4.4 Towards agile education and flexible HEIs
Looking for ways for academic teams to interact
with SMEs and with students is a very effective way
toobtainreal-timefeedbackinto courses,whichcan
then be brought to programme committees to
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:131e140 137

review.However,feedbackandchangearedifferent
things. HEIs should seek ways to embedtransversal
skills e.g. innovating thinking, critical thinking and
reasoning into all aspects of their programmes as a
matter of course. Reinforcing learning outcomes
(LOs) across modules to support higher level LOs
which include synthesis and analysis is just good
practice.
Often, quality assurance procedures within the
HEIs, which are there to support and ensure aca-
demicintegrityofprogrammes,mayalsobebarriers
toagileandrapidchangingofmodules,coursesand
LOs. It may be that we do not need to change a
module, we just need to introduce core LOs which
are ‘entrepreneurial’ in nature throughout our
courses. The challenge, however, is that an HEI
sector which is being shaped towards a consumer
model has developed systems, processes and
structures that limit agile/flexible approaches to the
construction of learning. This, in turn, limits the
reflexivity of practice.
In the case of English HEIs, the move to higher
tuitionfees(insomecasestripling)andenforcement
of consumer rights has cemented the notion that
students are consumers. As a result, power has shif-
ted away from HEIs as providers of education to
students as consumers of education (Tomlinson,
2014).TheimpactnotedbyGETM3participantswas
a shift towards quality education in which central-
isedKPI-drivenprocessesresultinslowchangeand
development. This is out of step with the needs of
SMEs and other industry partners.
5 Conclusion
In summary, this paper captures the central
challenges that lie at the heart of entrepreneurial
education in its conceptual construction and how
this shapes subsequent practices. In drawing on the
experiences within the GETM3 project, this paper
demonstrates a clear need for a more holistic un-
derstanding of entrepreneurial education. It should,
we argue, draw on a language and approach that is
cognisant of the challenges and structures of HEIs
and the needs of SMEs. To do this a further multi-
disciplinary dialogue is required, seeking to push
entrepreneurial education outside of traditional
disciplinary silos and to respond to the following
challenges.
A) A need for a typology of practices in support of the
multitude of entrepreneurial behaviours and traits
which make up the spectrum of entrepreneurial ed-
ucation. Such an approach would recognise that
one size does not fit all and that perhaps we
need formally to recognise the multiplicity of
approaches and understandings of entrepre-
neurship. This is, after all, in keeping with the
diverse body of literature outlined in this paper
that captures the diversity of practice. A map-
ping of behaviours, traits, competencies and
transversal skills to education practices could
help HEIs in the creation of more flexible and
dynamic education which can react to changing
requirements.
B) A need for dialogue between SMEs and HEIs to
innovate beyond the transactional placement provi-
sion approach. It is important to acknowledge
that there are extensive examples of dynamic
and innovative partnerships but that these ap-
proaches need to become the norm at an insti-
tutional level and beyond specific disciplinary
borders.Dynamicpartnershipsthatcreatespace
for dialogue with SMEs and industry partners
are essential, we believe, to capturing the role of
the contemporary HEI and the importance of
both local and global connections.
C) Theneedforresponsive,flexibleandagileeducational
approaches within HEIs which can be both innova-
tive and creative in support of educational develop-
ment. At the heart of this recommendation is
recognising that HEI leaders can, and in some
cases already do, trust programme teams to
generate opportunities that meet programme
aims/learning outcomes whilst also giving space
for new ways of working. There is, of course, a
risk to this and ultimately quality assurance and
KPIs shouldbeusedtomonitortheeffectiveness
and success of such changes.
From the discussions and reviews within the
GETM3 project sandpit environments, it was
evident that there is significant activity ongoing in
support of the EC strategy to grow SME capability
within Europe. This activity is highly varied in na-
ture,reflectingthebroadlyvaryingapproachesseen
within the literature. Further research is required to
providegreateralignmentbetweentheeffortsofthe
HEIs in the development of entrepreneurial educa-
tion and SME and EU expectations. With articulate,
commonly agreed definitions, the match of re-
quirements and expectations can be achieved but
only if the relationships between HEI and SME
remain innovative, flexible and agile in nature.
5.1 Limitations and future directions for research
This paper sets out to respond to the challenges
identified by the European Council in 2000, using
new data, ideas and recommendations around
138 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:131e140

entrepreneurship education. The generalisability of
these findings is limited, however, by the pre-
defined project population within the context of the
GETM3 project, so further research beyond this
project network would enhance the overall under-
standing of the effectiveness of entrepreneurial ed-
ucation across different countries, HEI groupings
and SME sectors.
More specifically, further research could address
the need for clearer common agreement on termi-
nology tofacilitate discussionofsharedgoalsetting.
This could start to bridge the gap between SMEs'
and HEIs’ expectations. Further investigation into
each of our key findings would enable a more
nuanced understanding of how to develop better
practice in the construction of more productive
partnerships between SMEs and HEIs. Further
mapping of the behaviours, traits and competencies
within both local and national contexts would allow
HEIs to service better the needs of SMEs through
more targeted entrepreneurial education.
Acknowledgement
This project has received funding from the Euro-
pean Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation
program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant
agreement no. 734824.
References
Ahmed, S., & Asraf, R. M. (2018). The workshop as a qualitative
research approach: Lessons learnt from a “critical thinking
through writing” workshop. The Turkish Online Journal of
Design, Art and Communication, Special Edition, 1504e1510.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communica-
tion. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265e299.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for
intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442e453.
Blenker, P., Frederiksen, S. H., Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., Neer-
gaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2012). Entrepreneurship as everyday
practice: Towards a personalised pedagogy of enterprise ed-
ucation. Industry and Higher Education, 26(6), 417e430.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psy-
chology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,77e101.
Braun,V., Clarke,V., Boulton,E., Davey,L.,& McEvoy,C.(2020).
The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13645579.2020.1805550
Busenitz, L. W., & Lau, C. M. (1996). A cross-cultural cognitive
model of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 20(4), 25e40.
Chambers,R.(1994). Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory
research and development. Institute of Development Studies.
Brighton: IDS. Working Paper no. 2.
Chambers, R. (2015). PRA, PLA and pluralism: Practice and
theory. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of action
research (3rd ed., pp. 31e46). New York: The Social Science
Research.
Dada, O., & Fogg, H. (2016). Organisational learning, entrepre-
neurial orientation, and the role of university engagement in
SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 34(1), 86e104.
Decter,M.,Cave,F.,&Rose,M.(2011).Universitiesandeconomic
development activities: A UK regional comparison. Industry
and Higher Education, 25(5), 359e374.
European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth. Availableat: https://ec.europa.
eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%
20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf.
European Council. (2000). Presidency conclusions. Lisbon: Euro-
pean Council, 23 and 24 March 2000. European Council.
Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_
en.htm.
Fayolle, A., Li~ nan, F., & Moriano, J. A. (2014). Beyond entrepre-
neurial intentions: Values and motivations in entrepreneur-
ship.TheInternationalEntrepreneurshipandManagementJournal,
10(4), 679e689.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essay. New
York: NY: Basic.
Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepre-
neurship’ paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new
values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of
knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3),
233e269.
Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods
practice. Qualitative Enquiry, 16(6), 455e468.
Higgins, D., & Elliott, C. (2011). Learning to make sense: What
works in entrepreneurial education? Journal of European In-
dustrial Training, 35(4), 345e637.
Hisrich, R. D. (1990). Entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 45(2), 209.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs' optimism
and new venture performance: A social cognitive perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 473e488.
Huggins, R., Johnston, A., & Steffenson, R. (2008). Universities,
knowledge networks and regional policy. Cambridge Journal of
Regions, Economy and Society, 1, 321e340.
Jones, C., & English, J. (2004). A contemporary approach to
entrepreneurship education. Education þ Training, 49(8e9),
416e423.
Knight,F.H.(1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit, Hart, Schaffner, and
Marx prize essays, No. 31. Boston and New York: Houghton
Mifflin.
Kompf, M. (2012). Entreplexity® ¼ entrepreneurship þ complexity:
The writing and thoughts of gene Liczkiw. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishing.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research
interviewing. London: Sage.
Lillis, D., & Doyle, P. (2017). Global software innovators
strengthening the software innovation capacity of Europe and
Korea. In The 2017 international conference on global entrepre-
neurial talent management and social collaboration, Daegu, South
Korea, july 2017.
Li~ nan, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M.
(2011). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A
role for education. The International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 7(2), 195e218.
Liu, H., Kulturel-Konak, S., & Konak, A. (2020). Measuring the
effectiveness of entrepreneurship education. In Proceedings of
the 53rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp.
4705e4714).
McClelland, D. C., & Mac Clelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving
society. Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis:
An expanded sourcebook (2
nd
ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Mitchell,R.K.,Smith,B.,Seawright, K.W.,&Morse,E.A.(2000).
Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation decision.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 974e993.
Mukherjee, N. (1993). Participatory rural appraisal: Methodology
and applications. In , Vol. 1. Studies in rural participation. New
Delhi: Concept Pub. Co.
Onuoha, G. (2007). Entrepreneurship. AIST International Journal,
10,20e32.
Ørngreen, R., & Levinsen, K. T. (2017). Workshops as a research
methodology. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(1), 70e81.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:131e140 139

Pearce, A., Harney, B., Zupan, N., & Stalker, B. (2019). Global
entrepreneurial talent management challenges and opportu-
nities for HRD. International Journal of HRD Practice Policy and
Research, 4(2), 5e8.
Rae,D.(2010).Universitiesandenterpriseeducation:Responding
to the challenges of the new era. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 17(4), 591e606.
Raposo, M., & Paco, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship education:
Relationship between education and entrepreneurial activity.
Psicothema, 23(3), 453e457.
Rasmussen, E. A., & Sørheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepre-
neurship education. Technovation, 26(2), 185e194.
Revans, R. W. (1982). The origin and growth of action learning.
Brickley, UK: Chartwell-Bratt.
Reynolds, P., Storey, D. J., & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-national
comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates.
Regional Studies, 28(4), 443e456.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepre-
neurshipasafieldofresearch.AcademyofManagementReview,
25(1), 217e226.
Shockley, G. E. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship: Reconceptualis-
ingentrepreneurshipinpublicaffairs.InG.E.Shockley,P.M.
Frank, & R. R. Stough (Eds.), Non-market entrepreneurship:
Interdisciplinary approaches. Cheltenham: UK Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Tomlinson, M. (2014). Exploring the impacts of policy changes on
student attitudes to learning. York: Higher Education
Academy.
Val, E., Gonzalez, I., Iriarte, I., Beitia, A., Lasa, G., & Elkoro, M.
(2017). A design thinking approach to introduce entrepre-
neurship education in European school curricula. The Design
Journal, 20(sup1), S754eS766.
de Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in social research. London: Routledge.
Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in
entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing,
12(5), 403e421.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
140 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:131e140