See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272365567

Entrepreneurship and innovation

Article  in  Education and Training · February 2015

DOI: 10.1108/ET-02-2013-0018

CITATIONS READS

10 5,208

2 authors:

Alex Maritz Jerome Denis Donovan

La Trobe University Swinburne University of Technology
68 PUBLICATIONS   634 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   191 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

senior entrepreneurship View project

Sustainability Assessments of Japanese Multinational Corporations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alex Maritz on 14 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Education + Training
Entrepreneurship and innovation: Setting an agenda for greater discipline
contextualisation
Alex Maritz Jerome Donovan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

Alex Maritz Jerome Donovan , (2015),"Entrepreneurship and innovation", Education + Training, Vol.
57 Iss 1 pp. 74 - 87
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2013-0018
Downloaded on: 17 February 2015, At: 17:27 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 54 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 44 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Martin Lackéus, Karen Williams Middleton, (2015),"Venture creation programs: bridging
entrepreneurship education and technology transfer", Education + Training, Vol. 57 Iss 1 pp. 48-73
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2013-0013
Jose Luis Arquero, Carmen Fernández-Polvillo, Trevor Hassall, John Joyce, (2015),"Vocation,
motivation and approaches to learning: a comparative study", Education + Training, Vol. 57 Iss 1 pp.
13-30 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2013-0014
Professor Harry Matlay, Per Blenker, Stine Trolle Elmholdt, Signe Hedeboe Frederiksen, Steffen
Korsgaard, Kathleen Wagner, (2014),"Methods in entrepreneurship education research: a review and
integrative framework", Education + Training, Vol. 56 Iss 8/9 pp. 697-715 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
ET-06-2014-0066

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 215423 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

download.
*Related content and download information correct at time of

ET
57,1
74
Received 20 February 2013
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)
Revised 26 September 2013
6 December 2013
Accepted 8 December 2013
Education + Training
Vol. 57 No. 1, 2015
pp. 74-87
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912
DOI 10.1108/ET-02-2013-0018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm
Entrepreneurship and innovation
Setting an agenda for greater discipline
contextualisation
Alex Maritz and Jerome Donovan
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the synergies, similarities and differences between
entrepreneurship and innovation education and training programs, with the aim of challenging
the context of such programs.
Design/methodology/approach – This study utilises an extensive review of extant literature in the
fields of innovation, entrepreneurship and education. The literature, propositions and discussion are
intended to provide a bridge between entrepreneurship and innovation education and training
programs and seek to address the scientific legitimacy of these education and training disciplines as
separate, yet integrated disciplines.
Findings – Identifies a need to reconsider the diversity and relationship between innovation and
entrepreneurship education and training, primarily from contextual, theoretical, measurement,
distinctiveness, content, pedagogical and typology points of view. The range of multiple teaching
models and learning processes to embrace in various contexts.
Research limitations/implications – The propositions allow for the combination of teaching
initiatives in a theory-driven framework and their applicability to specific entrepreneurship and
innovation education and training situations.
Practical implications – The authors’ contribution identifies the synergies and differences
between entrepreneurship education and training programs. The propositions highlight areas of
contextualisation and practice-based view application, to adopt specific learning initiatives between
constructs.
Originality/value – The authors address a gap in the literature regarding the delineation
of entrepreneurship and innovation education and training, which has thus far remained sparsely
addressed in the education and training literature. The authors provide a practice-based view of
propositions, developed for future testing.
Keywords Training, Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Education
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Entrepreneurship and innovation are widely regarded as an important basis for
competitive advantage in a rapidly changing international business environment,
enhancing capabilities for sustainable business growth, economic activity and the
wealth of nations (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; O’Connor, 2013). Entrepreneurship
relates to the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities in the process of
business start-up, creation and growth; entrepreneurial dynamism is key to economic
renewal and growth (Shane, 2012; Lewrick et al., 2010). Innovation relates to the
development, adoption and exploitation of value-added activities in economic and
social areas; a key factor for competitiveness and growth (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010;
Lewrick et al., 2010).
Embracing and stimulating entrepreneurship and innovation education and
training provides nations with more entrepreneurs and innovators (Maritz and Brown,
2013; Donovan et al., 2013). It is, however, the quality of entrepreneurs and innovative
activity that meets with interest of programme stakeholders, audiences and governments
 (Edwards and Muir, 2012; Matlay, 2008; Jones, 2010). Entrepreneurship education Entrepreneurship
programs are defined pedagogical programs or education that aims to develop and innovation
entrepreneurial attitudes, skills and personal qualities; which are designed to empower
individuals with the necessary tools to initiate a new business (Fayolle, 2010). We define
innovation education programs as pedagogical programs or education for innovation
capabilities and skills, which involve personal, technical and organisational qualities;
designed to empower individuals with the necessary tools to undertake innovative 75
initiatives and implement these within an organisation (Lewrick et al., 2010).
Despite the linkages and synergies between the two disciplines, entrepreneurship and
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

innovation education and training remain two distinctively unique disciplines; each with
its own separate body of knowledge and outcomes (Shane, 2012; Adams et al., 2006). Such
uniqueness is evidenced by various factors, such as: contextualisation (Maritz and Brown,
2013; Matlay, 2005, 2008; Fayolle et al, 2006; Jones et al., 2012); definition (Shane, 2012;
Crossan and Apaydin, 2010); typology (Steffens et al., 2012); order of merit (Lewrick
et al., 2010; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010); theoretical underpinnings (Ireland et al.,
2005); measurement and distinctiveness (Adams et al., 2006; Gregson, 2013); content and
pedagogy ( Jones, 2010). Table I provides tabulation of these constructs.
Taking cognisance of an extensive review of the literature, the above factors are
presented as propositions in this paper. Our extensive review of the literature identified
an abundance of publications embracing both entrepreneurship and innovation education
and training in their titles and content, yet most failed to delineate or separate them as
unique and separate disciplines. Many were regarded as one in the same. Our practice-
based view proposes that whilst there are certainly synergies between the two disciplines,
there are most certainly applications unique to each when it comes to education and
training initiatives. We are not advocating an opposite view of the disciplines, but believe
all outcomes cannot be symmetrical from two different and unique perspectives.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the synergies and differences between
entrepreneurship and innovation education and training programs, thereby identifying
initiatives and implementations peculiar to each. We do so by integrating a previously
developed framework of an entrepreneurship education program (Maritz and Brown,
2013). The aim is to challenge the context of entrepreneurship and innovation education
and training. Whilst literature on entrepreneurship education is far-reaching and
widespread (Maritz and Brown, 2013); literature on innovation education is scant
(Maritz et al, 2014). This study addresses this gap in the innovation education and
training literature. The reason for delineating the two disciplines relates to the fact that
they are often regarded as one and the same, yet with distinctive differences in context,
outcome and process. In this paper, we provide clarification on how to delineate the two
disciplines to provide greater clarity for educators, training experts and practitioners.
The propositions developed from the literature follow.

Contextualisation
Prior to delineating the entrepreneurship and innovation education disciplines,
contextualisation of entrepreneurship and innovation education and training delivery
is paramount (Maritz and Brown, 2013). Most programs are typically offered by higher
education institutions (Neck and Greene, 2011), although well represented in the
training and development field ( Jones, 2010; Donovan et al., 2013). Contextualisation
includes, but not limited to, outcomes (Edwards and Muir, 2012; Matlay, 2008); audience
(Fayolle et al., 2006); student and educator diversity ( Jones, 2010); knowledge and
attitudes (Matlay, 2008); type of entrepreneur/innovator; teaching methods and
 ET Proposition
57,1 No. construct Prominent literature Empirical and conceptual studies

1 Contextualisation Higher education, training and Fayolle et al. (2006), Neck and
development, outcomes, audience, Greene (2011), Jones (2010), Matlay
student and educator diversity, (2008), Balan and Metcalfe (2012),
76 knowledge and attitudes, type of Harte and Stewart (2012)
entrepreneur/innovator, teaching
methods and pedagogy, evaluation
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

2 By definition Innovation definitions, Crossan and Apaydin (2010), Lassen

entrepreneurship definitions, (2007), Adams et al. (2006),
process, activity, opportunity Chesbrough (2006), Davidsson
evaluation, outcome (2013), Shane (2012), Shane and
Venkataraman (2000)
3 Typology Process, product, relational, radical, Kotelnikov (2013), Steffens et al.
incremental, technology, frugal, (2012), Matlay (2008)
necessity, opportunity,
contextualisation
4 Order of merit Individual, organisation, Zhaou (2005), Maritz and Brown
capabilities, audience, (2013), Lewrick et al. (2010)
commercialisation, components
5 Theoretical Network theory, resource based Ireland et al. (2005), Adams et al.
underpinnings view, practice-based view, (2006), Volery et al. (2013), Douglas
knowledge management, grounded (2013), Fayolle (2010), Rae (2004),
theory, economic foundation, failure, Spena and Mele (2012)
dimensions
6 Measurement Evaluation, frameworks, resources, Adams et al. (2006), Kelm et al.
and knowledge, organisation and (1995), Teece (2007), Gregson (2013),
distinctiveness culture, strategy, commercialisation, Shane (2012), Craig and Lindsay
process, dimensions (2012), Timmons et al. (2011)
7 Content and Variation, individuals, O’Sullivan (2003), Donovan et al.
pedagogy organisations, curriculum, technical, (2013), Maritz et al. (2014), Johnson
Table I. design, modules, tools, technical and (2001), Matlay (2009), Maritz et al.
Proposition personal skills, resource, approach, (2011), Rae (2010)
development learning

pedagogy (Fayolle, 2010; Balan and Metcalfe, 2012) and evaluation (Harte and Stewart,
2012) to name but a few. Of particular importance is the delineation of the
entrepreneurship and innovation constructs, an accepted definition of each is important:
P1. Contextualisation of entrepreneurship and innovation education and training
results in education and training initiatives unique to each discipline.

Definitions
The ambiguity related to innovation is prominent in the literature, as there is
considerable diversity in views and approaches to what actually constitute innovative
activity (Lassen, 2007). A widely accepted definition of innovation is provided by
Crossan and Apaydin (2010, p. 1155):
Innovation is the production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added
novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and
markets; development of new methods of production; and establishment of new management
systems. It is both a process and an outcome.
 Central within this definition, is the importance of innovation being viewed Entrepreneurship
from a process perspective, and incorporates many activities in an innovation and innovation
management framework and process (Adams et al., 2006). Leading scholars
have identified the requirement for additional research in commercialisation of
innovation, and we propose that entrepreneurship has the capacity to fill this
gap. We further take cognisance that innovation scholars often refer to exploitation
in a commercialisation and entrepreneurship sense (Chesbrough, 2006). For the 77
purpose of this paper, we define innovators as those individuals partaking in
innovation activities.
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

Similarly, there is much ambiguity regarding entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial

activity. Various theoretical underpinnings resonate conflicting outcomes, evidenced
in a recent seminal paper by Per Davidsson (2013), “Killing a Darling: Letting Go of
Entrepreneurial Opportunity and putting New Venture Idea in It’s Place”. A widely
accepted definition of entrepreneurship is provided by Shane and Venkataraman (2000,
p. 218) and later defended by Shane (2012):
Entrepreneurship is an activity that involves the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of
opportunities to introduce new goods and services, ways of organizing, markets, process, and
raw materials through organizing efforts that previously had not existed.
We also include a widely accepted definition of the entrepreneur, as it is most usually
an individual who discovers, evaluates and exploits opportunities. Bolton and
Thompson define the entrepreneur as:
A person who habitually creates and innovates to build something of value around perceived
opportunities (p. 16).
Given these definition, Shane and Venkataraman (2000) identify that the field of
entrepreneurship includes explanations of why, where, how and when opportunities
will exist for entrepreneurs; the processes behind identifying opportunities and
evaluation; how resources can be acquired to exploit these opportunities; the actual
process of exploiting opportunities; the role of the individual in this process; and, more
broadly, the strategies that can be utilised in pursuing opportunities (Shane, 2012;
Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). This definition links to innovation, with the use of
outcome perspectives of create and innovate (Adams et al., 2006).
The overlap of process and outcome are prevalent in definitions of entrepreneurship
and innovation, as are the creation of value. From a process perspective, entrepreneurship
is contextualised on opportunities, whereas innovation is contextualised on the
innovation process, from idea generation through product development to
commercialisation. As such, pedagogy, audience, objectives, content, assessment and
outcomes will differ significantly between entrepreneurship and innovation education
and training. In essence, entrepreneurship education is primarily targeted at start-ups
for nascent entrepreneurs, whereas innovation education is primarily targeted at
innovation processes for nascent innovators:

P2. By definition, entrepreneurship and innovation results in education and training

initiatives unique to each discipline.

Typology
It is important to differentiate types between these concepts, as these have direct
contextual significance in education and training. Cassivi et al. refers to an innovation
 ET typology through examining process, product and relational innovations. They further
57,1 identify various innovation sub-types, including radical, incremental, disruptive,
continuous, open, technological and frugal to name but a few. Kotelnikov (2013) also
identifies systematic innovation, incorporating: business, organisation, process,
technology, market and product innovation. Such innovation may integrate well
with the definition of entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship types predominantly centre on
78 the entrepreneur, including necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs (Steffens et al.,
2012). Sub-types include social, corporate, technological and lifestyle entrepreneurs.
Irrespective of types, the entrepreneurship and innovation processes prevail, albeit in
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

varying states. An example of such significance may be certain pedagogical and

audience initiatives when delivering entrepreneurship programs to social
entrepreneurs, which will be significantly different to pedagogical and audience
initiatives when delivering innovation programs to product development innovators.
What is clear though, is that typology is dependent upon contextualisation of
entrepreneurship and innovation programs (Matlay, 2008):

P3. Typology of entrepreneurship and innovation education and training results in

education and training initiatives unique to each discipline.

Order of merit
Entrepreneurship and innovation may also be delineated from the perspective of the
individual and organisation; where the former places emphasis on the individual actor,
or entrepreneur in start-ups, whereas the latter seeks a balance between the action of
the individual and broader organisational determinants. This has significance when
dealing with the audience (Maritz and Brown, 2013) in entrepreneurship and innovation
education.
Whilst Lewrick et al. (2010) postulate that entrepreneurship education programs
focus too much on the capabilities of the entrepreneur and the immediacy of starting a
business; they state the importance of innovation as a tool entrepreneur’s use toward
continuous development of the venture. Zhaou (2005) further identifies innovation as a
tool within entrepreneurship, in which entrepreneurs can exploit change as a distinct
opportunity within the business context. In contrast, Crossan and Apaydin (2010)
commence with a systematic innovation perspective, and state the importance of
entrepreneurship in the commercialisation of the innovation. As such, educational
initiatives vary amongst the components of programs. In such cases, as example,
a product development program (innovation) will not be appropriate when the objective
is, for example, developing a target market expansion plan (entrepreneurship).
This places emphasis on the order of merit, taking the stance that innovation
follows entrepreneurship (entrepreneurship context); or that entrepreneurship follows
innovation (innovation context):

P4. Order of Merit of entrepreneurship and innovation education and training

results in education and training initiatives unique to each discipline.

Theoretical underpinnings
Many of the theoretical bases for engagement between innovation and
entrepreneurship inherently incorporate similar approaches. Such examples include
network theory and resource based view (Ireland et al., 2005), practice-based view
(Crossan and Apaydin, 2010) and knowledge management (Adams et al., 2006). This is
 particularly as a result of both constructs being process and output driven (Shane, Entrepreneurship
2012). While knowledge and capabilities based theories traditionally lie at the firm and innovation
level, many researchers and practitioners have challenged this conceptualisation and
have argued for viewing value creation from a more individualistic foundation
(Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). Entrepreneurship and innovation education research
certainly resonates well with this proposition, however, appropriate to the necessary
contextualisation. Of particular variance, however, is the measurement of audience 79
outcomes, and in this instance, we refer in particular to entrepreneurial intentions
and self-efficacy (Douglas, 2013; Volery et al., 2013). These two cited empirical studies
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

examined intentionality and self-efficacy of nascent entrepreneurs. The grounded

theoretical concept peculiar to entrepreneurship in this context is Ajzen’s (1991)
theory of planned behaviour. In contrast, institutional theory is more appropriate to
innovation, due to the organisational significance (Ireland et al., 2005). Many scholars
view innovation diffusion from a macro-economic perspective, whereas entrepreneurship
is often viewed from a micro-economic perspective. This resonates well with a
micro-economic foundation of entrepreneurship effectuation theory, unique to
entrepreneurship, where one set of alternatives may result in a series of different
outcomes (Sarasvathy, 2008).
A recent promising way of combining the two disciplines comes through the
application of practice-based view (PBV), prevalent in entrepreneurship and innovation
education literature (Maritz et al., 2011, 2014; Rae, 2004; Fayolle, 2010; Pittaway and
Cope, 2007; Lewrick et al., 2010). From an innovation perspective, Spena and Mele
(2012) place emphasis on the PBV view with regard to co-creation of value. The
integration with entrepreneurship is that PBV advocates a process-oriented and
contextual-based view of co-creation. Value creation through technology competency
and innovation is a key resource for high technology entrepreneurial action (Harms
et al., 2012). This, however, varies substantially between the two disciplines. From an
entrepreneurship perspective, learning from failure (Gulst and Maritz, 2012) provides
insight to the PBV; whereas patents represent a PBV of codified knowledge in
innovation perspectives (Adams et al., 2006). Overall, however, there is no unifying
theoretical concept that integrates the two constructs across all dimensions (context,
outcomes, objectives, assessment, content, audience and pedagogy) of education
and training programs (Maritz et al., 2014). As such, from a theoretical base,
entrepreneurship and innovation education require significantly different perspectives
when implementing education and training programs:

P5. Theoretical underpinnings of entrepreneurship and innovation result in

education and training initiatives unique to each discipline.

Measurement and distinctiveness

There is a considerable literature on innovation measurement, predominantly focused
on evaluation of innovation management. Adams et al. (2006) identify a framework for
innovation management measurement with a series of areas to be considered in
brackets: inputs (including human resources, or physical and financial resources);
knowledge management (ideation, knowledge and information flows); innovation
strategy (strategic approach, leadership for innovation); organisation (culture and
structure); portfolio management (portfolio optimisation, balance between risk
and return, tool use); project management (project efficiency, tool use, communication
and collaboration); and commercialisation (market research and testing, marketing
 ET and sales). Intellectual property, patents, and research and development (R&D)
57,1 expenditures are often utilised as measures for innovation output.
Commercialisation, often referred to as implementation, usually refers to taking
an innovation to market, but may also mean adoption of new processes within
an organisation. Kelm et al. (1995) regards commercialisation as a phase whereby
the organisation shifts from a reliance on proof of concept and development of its
80 internal functioning (associated with business initiation), to becoming focused
on market dynamics. Commercialisation remains an area that is underdeveloped
within innovation management with a range of prominent scholars in innovation
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

management (Chenhall et al., 2011; Schroll and Mild, 2011; Teece, 2007; Chesbrough, 2006;
Adams et al., 2006) highlighting the importance of further theoretical and measurement
development.
Although entrepreneurship as a field of study has seen significant development in
recent years, there remains considerable debate over its distinctiveness and measurement
(Gregson, 2013; Edwards and Muir, 2012). The dimensions of entrepreneurship
measurement (Shane, 2012; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) have received much
attention from prominent academic scholars (Davidsson, 2013), and we use such
distinctive domains in this research. From a process perspective, we acknowledge the
Timmons Model of the entrepreneurial process (Timmons et al., 2011). This model
measures entrepreneurial activity around opportunity, resources and team and has
been deemed appropriate from an entrepreneurship education perspective (Craig and
Lindsay, 2012; Zeng et al., 2011). There is, however, limited empirical evidence of
this process as a measurement dynamic. Hence, we incorporate the Shane (2012)
dimensions.
Dimensions are listed, with descriptors in brackets: opportunity identification (idea
generation, context, perceptions and interpretations); choices (alternatives, subjectivity,
creativity, resources); exploitation (scarce resources, innovation); unit of analysis
(organisational, team/individual) and entrepreneurial process (venture creation, resource
determination, resource acquisition, venture development, managing the growing
business, scalability, sustainability, harvest). The fifth and final dimension of
entrepreneurial process is unique to the entrepreneurship discipline. Shane and
Venkataraman (2000) argue that entrepreneurship is a process, not the embodiment of a
type of person and is comprised of different sub-processes that are generally investigated
after opportunities are discovered. Shane (2012) clarifies that entrepreneurial process may
not necessarily be rational, planned, strategic or temporally ordered (e.g. identification,
evaluation, exploitation). Shane (2012) further suggests that there may be no optimal
entrepreneurial process, but rather that a number of equally effective processes exist – or
if there is an optimal process, entrepreneurs may not approach it in the best way
(Gregson, 2013).
Whilst the literature has identified a need for further research in the measurement of
both innovation and entrepreneurship, there is evidence that the two constructs involve
separate and differing process (Maritz et al., 2014). Granted, some do overlap, but the
entrepreneurial process is unique to entrepreneurship (Shane, 2012), and the innovation
management framework unique to innovation (Adams et al., 2006). For example,
innovation literature does not address venture harvest. On the other hand, the
development work on innovation commercialisation fits well with the entrepreneurship
process, albeit limited in context. As such, overall measurement of the two constructs
vary substantially, making a one-fits-all measurement for entrepreneurship and innovation
somewhat challenging. Taking cognisance of the measurement and distinctiveness of the
 two constructs, innovation and entrepreneurship education and training require Entrepreneurship
substantially different approaches: and innovation
P6. Measurement and distinctiveness of entrepreneurship and innovation result in
education and training initiatives unique to each discipline.

Content and pedagogy 81

Due to varying measurement, systems and assessment of programs, one would
assume that entrepreneurship and innovation programs would employ different
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

content (Maritz et al., 2011; O’Connor, 2013) and pedagogy (Fayolle, 2010; Matlay, 2008;
O’Sullivan, 2003). Whilst contextual ( Jones, 2010; Fayolle et al., 2006; Lewrick et al.,
2010) in their own right, we now explore possibilities of such variation. The purpose of
entrepreneurship education may be to help entrepreneurs launch new ventures and
understand the consequences of their decisions (Maritz and Brown, 2013); whereas
the purpose of innovation programs may be to enhance the innovative performance of
individuals and organisations (Donovan et al., 2013; Maritz et al., 2014). To achieve
these outcomes, different content and pedagogy is required.

Innovation specific
O’Sullivan (2003) placed emphasis on online pedagogy, and outlines content specific
innovation curriculum regarding the innovation process. Topics included: systems
theory, design, and engineering; knowledge and innovation management, strategic
planning, quality function deployment, project portfolio management, project teams
and workgroups, enterprise modelling, product design and creativity and ideas
generation. Johnson (2001) provided specific inputs for innovation education and training,
including: product development, research and development, new or adapted usage of
established goods or services, adaptations to market strategies, operations or logistics
innovations, and innovations through new or existing business models. Yanez et al.
provide a technical perspective, highlighting a range of content and pedagogy areas
specific to innovation, including: management areas specific to innovation, technology
and innovation knowledge, management procedures, and broader topics associated with
the context of managing innovation and technology. They argue for an educational
process that enables students within the innovation space to develop, implement and
manage new technologies. Interestingly, they do mention entrepreneurial absorptive
capacity in their program design.
Specific curricula for innovation includes: research and development, product
development, intellectual property, knowledge management, project management,
technology and innovation management, technology transfer and entrepreneurship.
Management subjects are offered on an individual and elective basis. Similar to this
approach, an international leading program in innovation (Global Innovation
Management: An Erasmus Mundus Program), with partners including The University
of Strathclyde, Technical University of Hamburg, Aalborg University and Swinburne
University of Technology, offer the following core modules: design methods, global
design, innovation management, technology management, supply chain management,
product development, business planning, product planning and marketing for innovation
(Maritz et al., 2014). They too offer an elective in entrepreneurship. In most cases,
entrepreneurship is seen as a tool for innovators to commercialise their innovations
(Donovan et al., 2013; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010).
 ET Notwithstanding specifics and contextualisation, content is generally technology
57,1 based and specifically designed around technical and personal skills (with a distinct
prominence on the former).

Entrepreneurship specific
The scholarship of entrepreneurship education provides substantial resource regarding
82 content and pedagogy (Balan and Metcalfe, 2012; Matlay, 2005, 2009; Jones, 2010;
Fayolle, 2010; Lewrick et al., 2010). Such delivery must always be taken in context of
components of entrepreneurship programs (Maritz and Brown, 2013). The literature is
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

abound with content around business plans, although many scholars believe business
plans not to be an entrepreneurial approach (Maritz et al., 2011). Content and pedagogy
varies among entrepreneurship programs, but Fayolle (2010) identifies various topics
and initiatives: opportunity evaluation, new venture marketing, leadership, managing
the growing business, new venture finance, new venture plans and exit strategies.
These resonate well with the entrepreneurship systems approach (Shane, 2012). Other
scholars place emphasis on education for types of entrepreneurs, such as social,
corporate and technology (Rae, 2010). Learning from an experiential and PBV view is
also highlighted in entrepreneurship education (Neck and Greene, 2011; Rae, 2004).
Innovation content is also offered throughout most entrepreneurship programs,
however, from an approach whereby innovation is used as a tool for entrepreneurs
(Lewrick et al., 2010).
In contrast to innovation education and training, entrepreneurship education and
training is primarily skilled based around the components of the entrepreneurship
process, with technology a secondary motive:

P7. Content and pedagogy of entrepreneurship and innovation education and

training result in education and training initiatives unique to each discipline.

A summary of propositions 1 to 7 is depicted in Table I, with corresponding body

of knowledge and literature and examples of empirical and conceptual studies in this
regard.

Discussion
The propositions do not represent an all-incident list of variation between the two
disciplines, but the result of an intensive review of the literature. We accept all
propositions in the contexts in which they are presented. It is, however, important to
view each proposition within the context of the discussion, including the background
of the framework provided (Maritz and Brown, 2013). Indeed, each proposition
most certainly has dependencies of various dimensions upon each other proposition.
We provide a practice-based view of the application of the propositions, using the
entrepreneurship education program framework as developed by Maritz and Brown
(2013). This framework consists of components of context, outcomes, objectives,
audience, content, pedagogy and assessment; adapted in an entrepreneurship and
innovation context.
We provide our application within each accepted proposition:

P1. Contextualisation of entrepreneurship and innovation education and training

results in education and training initiatives unique to each discipline.
 Stakeholders vary between the two disciplines; entrepreneurship primarily involves the Entrepreneurship
entrepreneur and networks, whereas innovation involves the organisation. Diversity of and innovation
process adds synergies across the disciplines, as does context of setting, career,
education level, multiple teaching models, publics, institution and international:

P2. By definition, entrepreneurship and innovation results in education and training

initiatives unique to each discipline. 83
Whilst both innovation and entrepreneurship involve process and outcomes, the
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

definitions provide substance of varying dimensions of such process and outcomes.

For example, the opportunity evaluation process is unique to entrepreneurship; in turn
necessitating unique pedagogy, content and assessment. Both disciplines involve the
creation of value, albeit in different manners. For example, innovation may involve an
improvement in production process, necessitating unique outcomes, content, audience
and objectives. An interest synergistic approach may include ways in which the
innovation commercialisation gap may be bridged by outcomes of the entrepreneurship
process:

P3. Typology of entrepreneurship and innovation education and training results in

education and training initiatives unique to each discipline.

We concur that many contextual, objective, audience, outcomes, assessment, content

and pedagogy components may resonate well across entrepreneurship and innovation
education. Such an example includes similar pedagogical initiatives between technology
entrepreneurship (entrepreneurship specific) and new product development (innovation
specific). But pedagogy differences may well be apparent between, for example, a high
growth entrepreneur expanding a venture internationally requiring unique pedagogical
initiatives relative to education required by an innovator in innovation management:

P4. Order of Merit of entrepreneurship and innovation education and training

results in education and training initiatives unique to each discipline.

We believe this to be of the most substantial variations when delineating the disciplines.
Since entrepreneurs view innovation as tool used in the entrepreneurship process, unique
entrepreneurship education components are required. For example, an entrepreneur may
require unique education or training to provide innovative ways of market entry. Since
innovators view entrepreneurship as tool in the commercialisation process, innovators
may, for example, require unique competitive and marketing skills as outcomes of the
innovation process:

P5. Theoretical underpinnings of entrepreneurship and innovation result in education

and training initiatives unique to each discipline.

Predominant linkages between the two disciplines are apparent in the practice-based
view, but distinctly different from other theoretical perspectives. An example may
be in entrepreneurship effectuation (unique to entrepreneurship), where education
and training in market expansion models may result in a multitude of outcomes.
Similarly, in a resource based view (unique to innovation), where education and training
in intellectual property may develop competitive advantage for an organisation.
 ET The overriding linkage of the practice-based view provides tangible and demonstrable
57,1 synergies across most components of education and training programs:

P6. Measurement and distinctiveness of entrepreneurship and innovation result in

education and training initiatives unique to each discipline.

84 A systems approach identifies certain processes unique to each discipline. For example,
education and training in innovation for research and development intensity requires
substantially unique pedagogy and assessment relative to education and training in
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

entrepreneurship for exit/harvest strategies. Due to such an approach, the literature

identifies entrepreneurship being more personal skills based, compared to innovation
being more technical skills based. Such dimensions certainly require different
approaches to context, objectives, outcomes, assessment, content, pedagogy and
audience:

P7. Content and pedagogy of entrepreneurship and innovation education and

training result in education and training initiatives unique to each discipline.

Content and pedagogy initiatives vary between innovation processes and

entrepreneurship processes. Content is also based upon entrepreneurial and innovative
outcomes. Pedagogy from a practice-based view provides a useful example of variation
between entrepreneurship and innovation education. A pedagogical initiative may
involve interviews with an entrepreneur, obviously more appropriate to entrepreneurship
education. In contrast, practice-based view pedagogy involving simulation for the
tendering of patents is more appropriate to innovation education. There are, however,
many pedagogical initiatives synergistic to both, including assigned readings, blended
learning, online, role playing, guest speakers and engagement to name but a few. Content
may also be formulated appropriately between disciplines, inclusive of a strong theory
and practice basis that emphasises the why, how, who, when and what as well as
outcomes-based content.

Conclusion
Our aim has been to challenge the context of entrepreneurship and innovation
education and training. This we have demonstrated using seven key propositions, a
result of an extensive literature review. We conclude that the disciplines have many
synergies between them, but also unique education and training characteristics. This
may also be seen between the overlap of content, as represented in Table I. These have
been demonstrated using a practice-based view against a previously developed
framework of an entrepreneurship education program (Maritz and Brown, 2013).
We believe we have also built a bridge across the gap in knowledge on innovation
education and training.
Limitations are based on propositions from an extensive review of the literature, and
their application in a practice-based view. Limitations are also based upon contextual
application, relevant in all entrepreneurship and innovation education and training
programs. Additional conceptualisation is also recommended regarding the addition
of further constructs, which may add further substantiation to delineate the two
disciplines. Further research is recommended to test these propositions empirically
across entrepreneurship and innovation education and training. Finally, we propose
 additional research to delineate innovation and entrepreneurship on a global platform; Entrepreneurship
particularly differences between government support and funding for innovation and innovation
and entrepreneurship.

References
Adams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2006), “Innovation management measurement: a review”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol 8 No. 1, pp. 21-47. 85
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour & Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

Balan, P. and Metcalfe, M. (2012), “Identifying teaching methods that engage entrepreneurship
students”, Education + Training, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 368-384.
Chenhall, R.H., Kallunki, J.-P. and Silvola, H. (2011), “Exploring the relationships between
strategy, innovation and management control systems: the roles of social networking,
organic innovative culture and formal controls”, Journal of Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 99-128.
Chesbrough, H. (2006), Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Craig, J. and Lindsay, N.J. (2012), “Incorporating the family dynamic into the entrepreneurship
process”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 416-430.
Crossan, M.M. and Apaydin, M. (2010), “A multi-dimensional framework of organizational
innovation: a systematic review of the literature”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47
No. 6, pp. 1154-1191.
Davidsson, P. (2013), “Killing a darling: letting go of entrepreneurial opportunity and putting new
venture idea in its place”, ACERA Conference, QUT, Brisbane.
Donovan, J., Maritz, P.A. and McLellan, A. (2013), “Innovation training within the Australian
advanced manufacturing industry”, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, Vol. 65
No. 2, pp. 256-276.
Douglas, E.J. (2013), “Reconstructing entrepreneurial intentions to identify predispositions for
growth”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 633-651.
Edwards, L. and Muir, E.J. (2012), “Evaluating enterprise education: why do it?”, Education and
training, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 278-290.
Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2010), “Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education”, International
Perspectives, Volume 3, Edward Elgar, MA.
Fayolle, A. Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006), “Effect and counter-effect of entrepreneurship
education and social context on student’s intentions”, Estudios de Economía Aplicada,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 509-523.
Gregson, G. (2013), “Applying philosophical perspectives to entrepreneurship inquiry:
implications for future research”, ACERA Conference, Brisbane.
Gulst, N. and Maritz, P.A. (2012), “The paradoxical nature of new venture failure”, Journal of Asia
Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 4-12.
Harms, R., Walsh, S.T. and Groen, A.J. (2012), “The strategic entrepreneurship process – new
avenues for research”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 72-87.
Harte, V. and Stewart, J. (2012), “Develop.evaluate.embed.sustain: enterprise education for keeps”,
Education + Training, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 330-339.
Ireland, R.D., Webb, J.W. and Cooms, J.E. (2005), “Theory and methodology in entrepreneurship
research”, Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 111-141.
 ET Johnson, D. (2001), “What is innovation and entrepreneurship? Lessons for larger organisations”,
Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 135-140.
57,1
Jones, C. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education: revisiting our role and its purpose”, Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 500-513.
Jones, C., Matlay, H. and Maritz, P.A. (2012), “Enterprise education: for all, or just some?”,
Education + Training, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 813-824.
86 Kelm, K.M., Narayanan, V.K. and Pinches, G.E. (1995), “Shareholder value creation during
research-and-development innovations and commercialization stages”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 770-786.
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

Kotelnikov, I. (2013), “Systematic innovation”, 1000 ventures.com, available at: www.1000

advices.com/guru/innovation_vk.htm, (accessed 21 February 2013).
Lassen, A.H. (2007), “Corporate entrepreneurship: towards an understanding of the importance
of radical innovation in knowledge intensive firms”, thesis, Videnbasen for Aalborg
UniversitetVBN, Aalborg UniversitetAalborg University, De Ingeniør-, Natur-og Sundhed
svidenskabelige FakulteterFaculties of Engineering, Science and Medicine, Center for
Industrial ProductionCenter for Industrial Production, Alborg.
Lewrick, M., Omar, M., Raeside, R. and Sailer, K. (2010), “Education for entrepreneurship and
innovation: management capabilities for sustainable growth and success”, World Journal
of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 6 Iss. 1, pp. 1-18.
Maritz, A., Brown, C. and Chich Jen, S. (2011), “A blended learning approach to entrepreneurship
education”, Actual Problems of Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1.
Maritz, P.A. and Brown, C. (2013), “Illuminating the black box of entrepreneurship education
programs”, Education + Training, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 234-252.
Maritz, P.A., de Waal, G.A., Buse, S., Herstatt, C., Machlachlam, R. and Heidemann, A. (2014),
“Innovation education programs: towards a conceptual framework”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 17, pp. 166-182.
Matlay, H. (2005), “Researching entrepreneurship and education part 1”, Education + Training,
Vol. 47 Nos 8/9, pp. 665-677.
Matlay, H. (2008), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 382-396.
Matlay, H. (2009), “Entrepreneurship education in the UK, a critical analysis of stakeholder
involvement and expectations”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
Vol. 16, pp. 355-368.
Neck, H. and Greene, P. (2011), “Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
O’Connor, A. (2013), “A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: meeting
government and economic purpose”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 28, pp. 546-563.
O’Sullivan, D. (2003), “Online project based learning in innovation management”,
Education + Training, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 110-117.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007b), “Stimulating entrepreneurial learning: integrating experiential
and collaborative approaches to learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 211-233.
Rae, D. (2004), “Practical theories from entrepreneurs’ stories: discursive approaches to
entrepreneurial learning”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 195-202.
Rae, D. (2010), “Universities and enterprise education: responding to the challenge of the new
era”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 591-606.
 Sarasvathy, S. (2008), Effectuation – Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Entrepreneurship
Schroll, A. and Mild, A. (2011), “Open innovation modes and the role of internal R&D: and innovation
an empirical study on open innovation adoption in Europe”, European Journal of
Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 475-495.
Shane, S. (2012), “Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: delivering the promise of
entrepreneurship as a field of research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 10-20. 87
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 217-226.
Downloaded by SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 17:27 17 February 2015 (PT)

Spena, T. and Mele, C. (2012), “Five co-s in innovating: a practice-based view”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 527-553.
Steffens, P.S., Stuetzer, M., Davidsson, P. and James, N. (2012), “The global entrepreneurship
monitor: Australia 2011 national report”, QUT Publications, Brisbane.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319-1350.
Timmons, J.A., Gillin, L.M., Burshtein, S.L. and Spinelli, S. (2011), New Venture Creation: A Pacific
Rim Perspective, McGraw Hill, Sydney.
Volery, T., Mueller, S., Oser, F., Naepflin, C. and del Rey, N. (2013), “The impact of
entrepreneurship education on human capital at upper-secondary level”, Journal of Small
Business management, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 429-446.
Zeng, F., Xiang, B. and Li, S. (2011), “Study on entrepreneurial process model for SIFE student team
based on timmons model”, Journal of Chines Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3 Iss. 3, pp. 204-214.
Zhaou, F. (2005), “Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and innovation”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 23-41.

Further reading
Davey, T. (2013), “The role of supporting mechanisms on entrepreneurship within HEIs – using
the result from the largest European study into HEI – business cooperation”, ACERA
Conference, QUT, Brisbane.
Hall, R., Agarwal, R. and Green, R. (2012), “The future of management education scoping paper”,
The Australian Business Deans Council, March.
Harkins, A., Tomsyck, J. and Kubik, G. (2002), “Prospective education for an innovation
economy”, On the Horizon, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 17-22.
Maritz, P.A. and Gillin, M. (2010), “Finalist in the global entrepreneurship education award”,
United States of America Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE).
Matlay, H. and Carey, C. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a longitudinal perspective”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 252-263.
Parida, V., Westerberg, M. and Frishammar, J. (2012), “Inbound open innovation activities in
high-tech SMEs: the impact on innovation performance”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 283-309.

Corresponding author
Dr Alex Maritz can be contacted at: amaritz@swin.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats