Studies in Higher Education

ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

Strategic choices in the design of

entrepreneurship education: an explorative study
of Swedish higher education institutions

Olof Zaring, Ethan Gifford & Maureen McKelvey

To cite this article: Olof Zaring, Ethan Gifford & Maureen McKelvey (2019): Strategic choices
in the design of entrepreneurship education: an explorative study of Swedish higher education
institutions, Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1637841

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1637841

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 02 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 77

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1637841

Strategic choices in the design of entrepreneurship education:

an explorative study of Swedish higher education institutions
Olof Zaring , Ethan Gifford and Maureen McKelvey
Department for Economy and Society, Institute of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, School of Business, Economics
and Law, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article proposes a taxonomy of entrepreneurship education, with the Entrepreneurship education;
aim of enhancing our understanding of how higher education contributes entrepreneurship;
to society. Entrepreneurship education programs have become a prominent innovation; university
feature in the curricula of many universities and business schools. Often it is students; support structures
developed in parallel with national policy, as described for our empirical
context of Sweden. We identify four types using broad principles in
terms of four different key variables described within. To identify our
proposed types, we perform a cluster analysis of all 37 universities with
entrepreneurship educations in one country. Previous literature provides
mixed evidence about entrepreneurship programs’ effect on the
likelihood of alumni starting a business afterwards. Our contribution is to
specify this taxonomy through broad principles, leading to interesting
questions about the competing goals between theory and practice in
learning outcomes. We conclude with suggested directions for future
research and implications for higher education policy.

1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship education and training has been a rapidly expanding, if diverse, field for many
decades, and has become a prominent feature in the curricula of not only business schools but
also other parts of HEIs (Katz 2003; Kuratko 2005). The trend for universities and colleges to offer edu-
cation and training in entrepreneurship is in line with traditional research assumptions about entre-
preneurship as an important driver of economic growth and increased employment rates
(Schumpeter 1934; Shane and Venkataraman 2000). Thus, the expansion of education in innovation
and entrepreneurship more broadly chimes with assumptions about the need for society to stimulate
entrepreneurship, as an important driver of economic growth and increased employment (Greene
and Saridakis 2008; Schumpeter 1934). In this article, innovation refers to the creation of a new
product or process able to be commercialized and/or having a clear economic value. We follow pre-
vious literature in conceptualizing that teaching entrepreneurship is about giving students the
necessary entrepreneurial attitudes and skills to exploit technological or commercial inventions
into innovations (cf. Bae et al. 2014). This article proposes a taxonomy of entrepreneurship education,
with the aim of enhancing our understanding of how higher education contributes to society.
Our view is that such a taxonomy is useful, because policy-makers and educators face challenges
in ascertaining how to evaluate the relative benefits of different types of entrepreneurship education,

CONTACT Ethan Gifford ethan.gifford@gu.se Department for Economy and Society, Institute of Innovation and Entre-
preneurship, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 625, Gothenburg 40530, Sweden
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 O. ZARING ET AL.

as well as how to evaluate the broader impacts. A taxonomy (classification of phenomena with the
aim of maximizing the differences among groups) is a prerequisite to any such evaluation as it works
toward reducing the difficulties in discerning sub-types in the complex population of entrepreneur-
ship educations (cf. Archibugi 2001). Previous literature includes a number of conflicting empirical
findings and competing ideas about when, and how, differences in entrepreneurship education
matter. Having analyzed previous survey-based research on entrepreneurship education, we have
found that it is descriptive and oriented towards the prevalence of entrepreneurship education in
different parts of national HEI systems, by focusing on the pedagogical methods and tools used
by educators (Barnard, Pittz, and Vanevenhoven 2018; Gartner and Vesper 1994; Gorman, Hanlon,
and King 1997; Maritz, Jones, and Shwetzer 2015; Plaschka and Welsch 1990; Solomon, Duffy, and
Tarabishy 2002; Solomon 2007). Our approach is novel, and makes a contribution to research on
entrepreneurship education by identifying dimensions and the fundamental design principles,
which in turn are applied to an empirical case that provides data to develop a taxonomy. We
conduct our analysis through an empirical analysis of the whole population of HEIs providing entre-
preneurial education in Sweden, using a cluster analysis. Linking the clusters to theoretical arguments
thus underlies our proposed taxonomy, and also provides an approach to a more nuanced discussion
of the advantages and disadvantages of entrepreneurship education.
Our starting point is thus that given conflicting findings from previous literature, there are inter-
esting possibilities to discuss whether, how, and why the different broad principles we identify can
lead to different possible outcomes from the student perspective. On the one hand, there is some
research support for the idea that entrepreneurship education and training might increase the
number of successful entrepreneurs (Katz 2007; Kuratko 2005; Lanero et al. 2011; Millán et al.
2014; Roman and Maxim 2017). This type of empirical research on entrepreneurship education
often explains the positive outcome with the aid of a model that assumes there is a connection
between entrepreneurship education and a better-educated workforce, which can usually be
expected to be more productive. In other words, adding to the human capital through entrepreneur-
ship education should have as an outcome more and better entrepreneurs.
On the other hand, other results suggest the opposite, that entrepreneurship education would not
lead to more entrepreneurs (Nabi et al. 2018; O’Connor 2013; Peterman and Kennedy 2003; Pons
Rotger, Gørtz, and Storey 2012). Certain types of entrepreneurship education might even act against
successful entrepreneurship (Peterman and Kennedy 2003). The arguments put forward have to do
with how the education will influence the students’ necessary entrepreneurial attitudes and skills to
exploit technological or commercial inventions into innovations. Some research finds that common
elements in the teaching (for instance so-called business modeling) within entrepreneurship education
might in fact reduce later willingness to start up new businesses, since the students become more risk-
averse. Being less risk averse is not necessarily a negative thing. One explanation may be that their edu-
cation makes them better at carrying out risk assessments (Bae et al. 2014; Oosterbeek, van Praag, and
Ijsselstein 2010; von Graevenitz, Harhoff, and Weber 2010) and makes them more aware of the chal-
lenges of successfully starting and managing a business (Nabi et al. 2018).
Moreover, previous literature suggests that entrepreneurship education differs along various
dimensions, and hence we need to first identify these dimensions in order to identify patterns in
the way HEIs organize their entrepreneurial education. Some previous literature suggests that
different dimensions should matter, and in ways that likely impact whether or not different programs
will fulfill the stated objectives of the education per se, as well as the broader societal goals of econ-
omic growth and increased employment. We can thus characterize existing literature as having
different broad principles for teaching entrepreneurship.
One key principle is the balance between practical work as opposed to academic (classroom)
learning. Caird (1990) categorizes entrepreneurship education initiatives as oriented towards educat-
ing ‘for’ enterprise or ‘about’ enterprise, where the former is about learning how to initiate and
develop businesses, and the latter is to give awareness of business and industry. Later, other research-
ers divide entrepreneurship teaching according to the goals of university support measures by using
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3

distinctions such as ‘educating’, ‘stimulating’, and ‘incubating’. The categories of ‘stimulating’, and
‘incubating’ entail activities, such as providing pitching opportunities, office space or even seed-
financing within the curriculum (Jansen et al. 2015). Thus, some programs will offer various elements
of practical work, while others mainly teach an academic, intellectual approach to entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurial learning (Nabi et al. 2018). In what we here denote as practical work within the
curriculum, it may be necessary for the teaching institutions to support the students by providing
specially developed resources (like funding or coaching) that make it possible to practice entrepre-
neurship. In the latter case of more academic learning, lectures, seminars and case studies can be
used, to promote discussion and find similarities to how, for instance, business is often carried out.
In relation to this broad principle, some research demonstrates that entrepreneurship education
where the content is too applied and practical has a poorer outcome for participating students in
terms of successful entrepreneurship (Martin, McNally, and Kay 2013). The reason is believed to be
that practice-based elements do not generate increased students’ abilities, since they are not primar-
ily aimed at increasing intellectual capacity. Instead, practically oriented training may rather be pro-
viding socialization within a specific business context. In contrast, students on more academically
oriented programs, where the teaching enhances intellectual ability, by comparison tend to be
more successful as entrepreneurs (Martin, McNally, and Kay 2013). One reason might be that the aca-
demic orientation develops the ability to reach decisions in complex and uncertain situations, since
the students have been trained in handling abstract information. This result agrees with a more
nuanced understanding of the idea that a more developed human capital is more productive (if
what is referred to is an emphasis on the development of intellectual ability, cf. Becker (1964)).
From the above overview of the entrepreneurship education literature, we identify the following
insights:

(1) Entrepreneurship training may be associated with economic growth, especially if requisitely
trained potential entrepreneurs graduate and enter the business world.
(2) Entrepreneurship education is diverse as to its objectives and methodology. This means that it
could be very different in different universities because practical work methods may vary con-
siderably depending on the aims of the program, course or support measures.
(3) Within this diversity, an important broad principle is the relative mix of practical work as opposed
to academic (classroom) learning.
(4) The empirical evidence on the effects of entrepreneurship training on potential entrepreneurs is
ambiguous, with conflicting evidence: some types of training may reduce the entrepreneurial
potential of students while other may increase entrepreneurship, alternatively help students
make better choices.

These four insights are useful to focus our analysis, including what to focus upon here and what to
develop in later work. The first and fourth insights have to do with broader societal impact, while the
second and third insights relate to specific dimensions and principles to capture diversity.
The first insight has to do with the need to address societal impact, and we do so in terms of
rationale for supporting entrepreneurship education. Section 2 provides a brief summary of the
empirical context, specifically Swedish public policy related to entrepreneurship education. this
study focuses upon all entrepreneurship education provided in the Swedish context at the time of
the study (Tillväxtverket 2013).
The second and third insights have to do with specific dimensions, which represent a starting-
point for our analysis. Section 3 provides the results of our empirical analysis of Swedish entrepre-
neurship education in all HEIs. We start by examining all HEIs, and move on to describe them in
terms of different dimensions, starting with the principle of practical work and academic (classroom)
learning. The analysis of additional dimensions of difference was obtained during our empirical analy-
sis, leading to the identification of another important principles, e.g. the aims, types and mix of
support measures. To further develop our analysis based on these initial findings, Section 4 uses
4 O. ZARING ET AL.

quantitative data from our empirical analysis, in order to perform a cluster analysis. We find four clus-
ters, which are described and used to develop four ideal types in our taxonomy.
The fourth insight has to do with societal impact in terms of performance of students who have
completed the education. This article does not address the evaluation of performance (e.g. does not
address how many students later started companies nor evaluate the economic impact or similar).
However, our analysis does have implications, as elaborated in Section 5. Based on our taxonomy
of two sets of broad principles, we outline a series of propositions, which can be tested in future
research. Moreover, this discussion relating the literature to our proposed taxonomy is useful for
policy, specifically in order to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different ways of confi-
guring entrepreneurship education programs.

2. Empirical context
The Swedish government has in recent years assigned a very high priority to the promotion of the
knowledge and innovation systems related to universities, and has been extremely active in instruct-
ing several ministries to assess, enhance and reward the growth of universities which prioritize activi-
ties related to innovation and entrepreneurship. Major priority areas for policy have been how
universities: work with identifying ideas and stimulating entrepreneurship; contribute to and interact
with the established firms in the private and public sectors; and establish and improve entrepreneur-
ship education for students (Högskoleverket 2008). We have chosen to limit our study to the
responses of educators to public policy changes addressing entrepreneurship education. Specifically,
we collected data on the status of entrepreneurship education at the end of a two-year program in
2013, which was initiated as part of these changes in policy. Our delimitation allows us to capture the
results of choices made by educators to the same policy change at one point in time, meaning that
the effects of time-bound conditions affect the educators to a similar degree. Hence, our study is
limited to one nation during a specific time period. Even though this enables the opportunity for
a detailed empirical study, our results are based on the conditions of one geographical location,
one institutional context, and one time period.
Several ministries in Sweden were highly active in assessing and promoting entrepreneurship
education in Sweden during the first decade of the twenty-first century and to a great extent still
are today. This includes the Swedish governmental agency for innovation systems (Vinnova), the
Swedish agency for economic and regional growth (Tillväxtverket), and the Swedish national
agency for higher education (Högskoleverket), the latter of which later evolved into the Swedish
higher education authority (Universitetskanslersämbetet).
Högskoleverket conducted a survey in 2007 (Högskoleverket 2008) which assessed the Swedish
Universities’ self-reported activities concerning novel idea identification, entrepreneurship stimu-
lation, support and interaction with existing firms and the public sector, and entrepreneurship edu-
cation for students. They found that, in conjunction with Vinnova’s ‘key actors’ program, the Swedish
universities on average saw an increase in these activities. This was further exemplified by the award-
ing of strategic funds to further increase the pace and quality of entrepreneurship education program
development at several universities which were ranked as having the highest potential to deliver. This
program, Spetsutbildningar i entreprenörskap, or, strategic entrepreneurship educations, saw schools
like Gothenburg University, Chalmers Technical College, and Lund University as frontrunners in entre-
preneurship education (Regeringskansliet [Swedish Government Offices] 2013).
While during the mid-2000s and early 2010s, the ministries deemed that there was strong progress
in these activities at many universities, the development remained uneven, with some universities
constituting the more ‘strategic’ actors in the process, and others contributing decidedly less. One
key area where the ministries saw room for improvement was in the creative and cultural domain
of education. Tillväxtverket conducted a 2-year program where they assessed and rated the potential
for entrepreneurship education in this particular domain, resulting in increased resources and devel-
opment for a handful of universities, as well as increased promotion of networking between these
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 5

universities in order to improve entrepreneurship education in the arts across the Swedish higher
education landscape (Tillväxtverket 2013).
All of this has led to the following: Entrepreneurship education in Swedish higher education insti-
tutions has in recent years seen a wealth of investment and support from a broad range of govern-
ment actors, including many specialized ministries. This is an active strategy on the part of the
Swedish government to make entrepreneurship ‘as natural a choice as employment’ (Regeringskan-
sliet 2009, 2, translation by authors), and for it to become something that is present in all types of
educations. In addition, universities and colleges in Sweden also provide many other forms of
support designed to encourage students start their own businesses, e.g. through innovation
offices and incubators. The reports of the Högskoleverket (2009) and the Tillväxtverket (2013) thus
give the impression that entrepreneurship teaching in Sweden may vary greatly in design and style.
Sweden thus has active policy to promote entrepreneurship education for societal impact. More-
over, the diversity of education given by HEIs in Sweden is considerable, which is similar to findings
from other countries in general (cf. Gorman, Hanlon, and King 1997; Vesper and McMullan 1988).

3. Results of the empirical analysis of Swedish entrepreneurship education

This section describes the results of our empirical analysis of Swedish entrepreneurship education.
Our starting point was to select all Swedish higher education institutions that reported via their web-
sites that they carried out teaching in entrepreneurship in 2013.1 For these self-reported claims we
compiled the data and classified the nature of entrepreneurial education for each HEI (as explained
below in Section 4.1). We then collected additional, more detailed information from each institution’s
website including official documents such as course and program syllabi, in order to establish the
extent of their entrepreneurship education offering. The population frame is all Swedish universities
and colleges authorized to award Swedish academic degrees, as listed in 2013 by the Universitets-
kanslersämbetet (2013). All 51 teaching institutions that were active in Sweden in 2013 are included
in our investigation.
The empirical analysis explores the following issues: (a) How widespread is teaching of entrepre-
neurship and innovation in HEIs? Here we provide an overall picture of its occurrence within the
Swedish higher education sector. (b) What is the orientation of entrepreneurship education in
Swedish universities and colleges? Here we expect to find differences between different universities
and colleges, principally contrasted in terms of the level of degrees and in various dimensions related
to teaching. We use hierarchical cluster analysis in order to break down the different characteristics of
Swedish HEIs with regard to entrepreneurship education by means of level and form of said edu-
cation, and assigned support scheme connected to the activity.

3.1. Availability and design of entrepreneurship education in Sweden

We begin by providing an overview of the availability of entrepreneurship education within the
Swedish university and college sector. Our analysis identified that 37 of 51 HEIs offer some form of
education in innovation and entrepreneurship, cf. Table A1 in the Appendix to this article.
These 37 HEIs include all universities and most colleges: this means that 73% of Swedish higher
education institutions state that they provide education in entrepreneurship. The remaining 14
HEIs consist mainly of smaller, usually specialized, colleges that do not state that they provide any
education in innovation and entrepreneurship, such as the Swedish Institute for Cognitive Psy-
chotherapy. Out of these 37 HEIs, all claim to provide support structures for entrepreneurship;
additionally, 22 out of the 37 HEIs own (wholly or partially) incubators or investment firms. Thus,
the potential to support entrepreneurship according to the type of entrepreneurship (e.g. educate
for enterprise) education and the aims of university support structures (e.g. stimulate or incubate)
education and also connect entrepreneurship students to the wider ecosystem seems evident (cf.
Caird 1990; Jansen et al. 2015).
6 O. ZARING ET AL.

In Sweden, entrepreneurship education is widespread in that most Swedish universities and col-
leges offer various degrees of education in entrepreneurship in the form of modules,2 courses, and
programs (Högskoleverket 2009; Tillväxtverket 2013).
We also investigate differences in the objectives of educational orientation for the HEIs providing aca-
demic training in entrepreneurship. Based on the above literature discussion, we have already identified a
broad principle, namely practical work as compared to academic (classroom) learning. We thus dis-
tinguish empirically between two sub-types, with the theory-based objective (reminiscent of the
‘about’) and the practice (or the ‘for, in’) based on, cf. Caird 1990; Co and Mitchell 2006; Cumming and
Fischer 2010; Mwasalwiba 2010. In our study, a theory-based program in entrepreneurship refers to an
education designed to provide academic learning about scientifically established knowledge about entre-
preneurship, using theories, models and facts. In contrast, a practice-based program in entrepreneurship
refers to an education which is to a variable degree also designed to tap into unspoken, more practical
knowledge of entrepreneurship, often based on practical work with expert support.
Fifteen institutions provide both programs and courses; 19 institutions only provide courses in entre-
preneurship. Table 1 further shows that three institutions only provide modules in entrepreneurship.
This second, practice-based program type is the considerably more prevalent type in the HEIs in
our empirical analysis. The first type, with its theoretical emphasis on academic learning only, is more
prevalent in the smaller, specialized colleges. We can further state that those institutions that provide
programs mainly organize the education in such a way that it is based on practical elements com-
bined with elements of scientifically established theories, models and facts.
A fairly significant proportion of the surveyed institutions offer entrepreneurship education in the
form of programs, at undergraduate or graduate level, incorporating some form of practical elements.
Programs at both undergraduate and graduate level include a final degree project in the form of a
substantial essay.
Next, we focus on the final stage of the education at the program level – degree projects produced
within Swedish entrepreneurship programs. Are the programs based on academic learning or prac-
tical work? Are there any other distinctive characteristics? Table 2 makes use of our classification in
Table 1, but this time applied to degree projects. We have also added a further column indicating the
programs in which a business is set up as part of the student’s degree project. In addition, we note
whether the program is at the undergraduate (Bachelor) or graduate (Master) level.
Of the surveyed institutions, 15 offer degrees in entrepreneurship or a closely related field (as shown in
Table 1, column 3). Most of these are at the post-graduate level with a small proportion (4) at the under-
graduate level. About half of the HEIs include practical work in the degree project. The level of support
provided by the HEI varies between those seven institutions that include practical work. There are, for
instance, two institutions – Chalmers and Lund – where the students start their own business as part
of a degree project at the graduate level. Here the support is likely to be extensive.
Degree projects including practical elements do, out of necessity, require that students receive
practical support in the form of advice, internships or in some cases financial support, to enable
them, when applicable, to start their own businesses within the framework of the degree project
(cf. Jansen et al. 2015). Support may be organized at the HEIs, either by teaching staff or by internal
bodies, such as technology transfer offices, sometimes in cooperation with the stakeholders of an HEI,
cf. (Bischoff, Volkmann, and Audretsch 2018). A comprehensive term, sometimes used to describe
different types of practical support for participants in entrepreneurship education, is ‘microeconomic
support’ (Chrisman, McMullan, and Hall 2005), where these authors further divide microeconomic
support can be either take the form of advice or the form of finance, or both. In this article, we

Table 1. Number of Swedish HEIs with specific types of entrepreneurship education.

Course material focus Module only Up to course level Up to program level
Academic learning only 3 10 1
Academic learning and practical work 0 9 14
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 7

Table 2. Support structures for degree projectsa.

New venture founded
Institution Advice and monetary support Advice Support during education
Blekinge Institute of Technology x
Chalmers University of Technology x x x
Karolinska Institutet x
Konstfack University of Arts, Crafts and Design x
KTH Royal Institute of Technology x
Lund University x x
Umeå University x
University of Gothenburg x
Uppsala University x
a
Forms of microeconomic support within degree programs in entrepreneurship, where there is a requirement for the degree
project to contain practical elements.

use the concepts of ‘advice support’, respective ‘advice and monetary support’ (since no institutions
offer solely monetary support without providing advice support).
Out of those 15 having programs in entrepreneurship education, nine institutions, including those
seven where degree projects are of a practical nature, provide some form of microeconomic support
for students who start their own business during their studies (shown in Table 2).
Advice support provided through some form of expert advice, such as assistance in building and
maintaining networks and attracting finance, is the most common.3 In one single case advice and
monetary support is provided for degree projects. That is, students at one of the HEIs receive seed
finance to enable them to set up a company within the framework of their degree project.
In addition to support given explicitly to educational programs, Swedish higher education insti-
tutions also may provide future academic entrepreneurs with a more general form of microeconomic
support – often via so-called innovation offices. Such support might be available to citizens more
generally, and all students at an institution, including but not limited to those working on degree pro-
jects within entrepreneurship.

3.2. Summarizing the results of the empirical analysis of entrepreneurship education

Today, entrepreneurship education is widely available within the Swedish higher education system.
We have seen that 37 of 51 universities and colleges offered some form of entrepreneurship edu-
cation in 2013; a few only through modules, and mainly in the form of single courses and degree
programs. The institutions also offer various types of general microeconomic support for future aca-
demically trained entrepreneurs. However, there are exceptions: Some small and specialized colleges
offer neither support nor graduate-level education for future entrepreneurs. Fifteen of the surveyed
institutions provide programs of entrepreneurship education, mainly at the graduate level, leading to
a master’s or bachelor’s degree in entrepreneurship. Half of these combine practical elements with
scientifically established knowledge about entrepreneurship. Two of the graduate level programs
of entrepreneurship education further include elements requiring the students to set up businesses
as a part of their compulsory degree project. These represent the most complex and resource-inten-
sive version of entrepreneurship education. Out of the 15 HEIs with programs, only one provides the
students with advice and monetary support, while the other 14 offer only advice support.

4. Common traits in entrepreneurship education through cluster analysis

4.1. Variables
As seen in the above empirical analysis for all Swedish HEIs, we have found some commonality in the
design and objectives in entrepreneurship education among the HEIs as well as important dimen-
sions of differences. Therefore, because we also aim to identify patterns in the way HEIs organize
their entrepreneurial education, we wish to find a way to relate different groups of dimensions
8 O. ZARING ET AL.

into related types of education. We conduct a cluster analysis in order to group the educations along
specified dimensions, specifically those in which they share any similarities within groups to a higher
degree than between groups of HEIs. To do so, and as introduced above, we use the data collected,
on a number of variables, for each of our 51 cases. These variables are as follows:

. Entrepreneurship education: A binary variable denoting whether or not the HEI has any form of
entrepreneurship education as documented above.
. Type of content: An ordinal categorical variable denoting whether the nature of the education is
absent; theoretical; or combination of theory and practice. This variable was created based on
the authors’ assessment of course and degree requirements stated on the websites and in
official course and program documents: If the course or program only required a theoretical dis-
sertation/thesis, it was coded as theoretical, while if it required a combination of theoretical and
practically oriented material (i.e. case study of a company, internship, or actually starting a venture)
it was coded as a combination of theory and practice. Since no HEIs had only practically oriented
degree/course requirements, this category was merged with that of combined theory and
practice.
. Format: An ordinal variable denoting the most comprehensive form of education offered in entre-
preneurship by the HEI (module or thread; course; program).
. Type of thesis work: A binary variable denoting whether the thesis (of a program) is theoretical or
practical in nature.
. New venture: A binary variable denoting whether or not a new venture is founded as part of the
content.
. Degree type offered: An ordinal variable denoting the total types of degree(s) offered by the HEI:
Bachelor only; Master only; Bachelor and Master; Master + Swedish Magister. The variable is
ordered after the highest amount of total academic achievement possible in entrepreneurship
at the HEI.
. Type of support: An ordinal variable denoting the type of support offered within the content by the
HEI: No support; Advice support; Advice and monetary support. The variable is ordered after the
lowest to the highest level of support.
. Holding company: A binary variable denoting whether or not the HEI has a holding company.

4.2. Cluster analysis

We also used this data to perform a hierarchical cluster analysis on the multiple case data gathered on
the 51 Swedish HEIs, though the clustering algorithm used narrows the scope of our analysis so that it
focuses only upon HEIs with offer degree programs in entrepreneurship education.
The method of hierarchical clustering used was Ward’s (1963) minimum variance method. This
clustering method uses squared Euclidean distance as well the squared error minimization function
as employed in ANOVA, and is commonly applied when dealing with and constructing different taxo-
nomies or typologies of observations within a compact, spherical cluster (Legendre and Legendre
2012), making it an ideal choice for a small number of observations with predominantly binary
and ordinal variables.
Using this technique, we identify four hierarchical clusters amongst the 15 cases of entrepreneurial
education programs, see Figure 1 above. The first two clusters in Figure 1 seem less elaborate and
share some similarities, such as more limited objectives. The last two clusters are distinctly set
apart from the first two ones in being more elaborate in terms objectives and of involving support
structures.
The institutions of cluster 1 in Figure 1, have only bachelor programs, and no new ventures are
formed. The thesis work is entirely theoretical; the teaching, however, combines both theoretical
and practical elements of entrepreneurship. There is no support (neither indirect nor direct).
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 9

Figure 1. Cluster dendrogram of entrepreneurship education in Swedish HEIs using Ward’s method of euclidian distance. Notes:
The subtrees in the figure denote where different variables overlap for different HEIs within the clusters. The height of the cluster
simply shows the squared Euclidian distance between different clusters.

Example HEIs are: Södertörn University, Mid Sweden University, University of Borås, Malmö University.
In cluster 2 in Figure 1 most have a master program, and no new ventures are formed. The thesis work
is entirely theoretical. Support is split between none at all and indirect (leaning toward indirect), and
all have a holding company for new venture support. The focus of the education tends toward theory
and practice being integrated but an exclusive theoretical focus does occur. Example HEIs are: Konst-
fack, Halmstad University, KTH. The institutions in cluster 3 in Figure 1 tend to have a master program
and often either a bachelor or a Swedish ‘magister program as well. In no instances are new ventures
started, and the thesis work tends towards practical aspects of entrepreneurship. They tend toward
indirect support, though some offer none at all. The program in general is integrating theory and
practice, rather than solely focusing on theory. Example HEIs are: Jönköping University, Uppsala Uni-
versity, Blekinge Institute of Technology, University of Gothenburg. The institutions in cluster 4 in
Figure 1 most commonly have only a master, though some include a bachelor program. In some
instances, a new venture is formed. The thesis work is always practical, and all have a holding
company at the University that specializes in entrepreneurship. They all have at least indirect
support though there does occur direct support in the cluster. The education is a combination of
theory and practice. HEIs: Chalmers Institute of Technology, Lund University, Karolinska Institutet,
Umeå University.
We aim to clearly identify and separate those dimensions that decide how the degree offering
institutions of higher education end up in any one of the four clusters describes above. The biplot
in Figure 2 of the hierarchical cluster shows that the main influential variables on which the univer-
sities are clustered. These are degree type offered (bachelor, master, master + bachelor, and master +
magister), type of thesis work (theory vs. practice), type of support for entrepreneurial activities (‘advice
10 O. ZARING ET AL.

Figure 2. Main influential variables in determining clustering of entrepreneurial education in Swedish HEIs.

support’, respective ‘advice and monetary support’), and whether or not a new venture must or may
be founded from the students’ efforts in the program.
The biplot shows graphically the way the clusters are formed, which is analogous to the principle
components analysis biplotting procedure, in that it shows the relationship the observations have to
different eigenvectors when plotted in multi-dimensional space, and how two principal components
would explain their distributed variance. One component is strongly influenced by the variable
denoting type of degree offered, which can be seen visually in the way it is almost perpendicularly
offset from the other three variable vectors, which tend to cluster together, and are summarized well
by the other generated component in the figure. The numbers (1–4) signify where a few of the obser-
vations lie in terms of how they relate to the 4 variable properties within the observable data space,
while the axes merely show the numerical values and weights of the clusters/components and has no
substantive value for our purpose. The other (lesser influential) variables used in the analysis all con-
centrated tightly around the midpoint, and so they were removed to ease interpretation of the figure.
The non-listed variable vectors (for example, Entrepreneurship Education, or, whether or not the HEI
has an entrepreneurship education program) are concentrated around the vector origin and due
to limited to no variation across categories (an HEI with no entrepreneurship education by definition
has no program or support structure for said program), these are omitted from the plot entirely. What
can be seen here is that the components in the biplot are analogous to the dendrogram in terms of
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 11

how the ‘trees’ of the cluster analysis are formed. The highest tree being largely influenced by degree
type, and the lower trees being influenced by the other three influential variables.

4.3. A proposed taxonomy of entrepreneurial education

Our proposed taxonomy consists of four types, which are defined using broad design principles for
entrepreneurial education in terms of: (a) a choice if and what degrees are to be awarded after com-
pleting the education; (b) different configurations of teaching approaches in terms of relative mix of
theoretical and practical foci; and (c) in whether a new venture is to be part of entrepreneurial edu-
cation; finally the education must (d) in all cases connect to the ubiquitous and appropriate structures
for microeconomic support, within or outside the HEI. The design principles are supported theoreti-
cally, especially (b) as described in on page 3 and 4 of this paper as well as empirically for (a) to (d) in
this section in our empirical material and cluster analysis.
If one were to apply these principles to design choices in a situation where entrepreneurial edu-
cation is contemplated at an HEI, a set of possible types results, going from a more fundamental
design ((1) Quick exposure to entrepreneurship) to the more specific ((4) Immersion as an entrepre-
neur). Hence, we propose a taxonomy of four types of entrepreneurial education:

(1) Quick exposure. The non-degree awarding type, where the students are taught entrepreneurship
through courses and modules but where no degree in entrepreneurship is awarded. In this case
the aims are conceivably set to stimulating an interest in entrepreneurship.
(2) Classroom exposure. The second type of entrepreneurial education is theoretically oriented,
resulting in an academic degree at any level, where thesis work has a theoretical focus. In this
case the aims are conceivably set to teaching students in the classroom; sitting them down to
comprehensively learn about entrepreneurship.
(3) Theoretical and practical exposure. The third type is comprised of entrepreneurship programs
where a mixed approach in regard to practical and theoretical foci is used for thesis work, result-
ing in an academic degree at any level. The aims could here be to provide a degree with under-
standing and practice; testing the classroom teaching and learning why it works.
(4) Immersion as an entrepreneur. The fourth type comprised of degree awarding programs where
the configuration of the teaching approaches is a relative mix of theoretical and practical foci
for thesis work. Additionally, an entrepreneurial venture is started as part of the education. Teach-
ing with entrepreneurship as the goal.

5. What can be learnt from our exploration of entrepreneurial education?

Given its rapid expansion and political prominence, entrepreneurship education provides into
insights about how to design education. Drawing upon earlier literature, we consider that previous
research results in entrepreneurship education indicate that intellectual depth is an active design
choice to educators engaging in entrepreneurial education, and that intellectual depth (e.g. linked
to academic teaching and not only practice) is one that provides the most significant contribution
towards strengthening human capital by adding and enhancing intellectual ability4 (Becker 1964;
Martin, McNally, and Kay 2013). This type of education provides the students with increased ability
to reach correct decisions in complex and dynamic situations, which is likely to have a positive
effect on growth and employment. Hence, we believe that one implication of this study is that our
propositions below, if they are confirmed by further research, can be used to inform design
choices within program-based education leading to an advanced degree, but where the practical
element is designed to enforce scientifically established knowledge about entrepreneurship. Propo-
sals in a similar vein exist in the entrepreneurship education literature, cf. Honig (2004).
A key point of this paper is variation. Because on one hand, universities and colleges often have a
high degree of freedom in designing the education they offer, which of course carries with it
12 O. ZARING ET AL.

responsibility for selecting suitable formats for their entrepreneurship education as suggested by the
literature that relates the aims of entrepreneurship education to its format (cf. Bjerke 2013; Caird
1990). One rationale for educators to choose a particular format might be the need to recognize
and develop entrepreneurs based on their individual characteristics, including educational back-
ground, (cf. Holienka, Holienková, and Gál 2015; Thompson 2004). In choosing a particular format,
educators also need to consider the choice of university support measures to potential entrepreneurs
(Jansen et al. 2015). From our empirical analysis we have found that higher education institutions in
Sweden have chosen a variety of orientations for their engagement with entrepreneurship education.
On the other hand, through the comparison, our analysis has identified particularly important dimen-
sions, specifically progression and educational level, the balance between theory and practice, and
the role of different support structures. We have therefore proposed a taxonomy, consisting of
broad principles and four types of entrepreneurship education, and these are useful to draw impli-
cations for policy-makers and educators, as well as areas for future research, cf. Section 5.3.
Based on the above analysis, we propose the following elements are useful for comparing (and
later evaluating) entrepreneurship education.

(1) We confirm ideas from previous research, that national policies influence the spread and orien-
tation of entrepreneurial education amongst HEIs. In the Swedish case, where most types of HEIs,
not just business schools, consequently offer entrepreneurial education. This calls for future
research that includes international comparisons to uncover the effect of national policies on
entrepreneurial education
(2) We propose that there is a taxonomy four types of entrepreneurship education (see 5.3), and that
they can be expected to in fact prepare students in different ways. The negative and positive
impacts, consequent on choosing one of types in the taxonomy are not always intuitive.
However, the impacts matter because details of the design may influence their interest in starting
a business and/or likely failure of a start-up business to vary according to these types. Given the
ambiguity of previous literature, more research is needed on these topics.
(3) We expect that this variation within our taxonomy is consequently expected to be dependent on
the mix between the principles that we drew from previous research and/or discovered through
our comparison. In specifically, variation is related to type of degree awarded, balance between
theory and practice, and presupposes the availability of support structures. These choices reflect
educational choices, but can impact conditions and opportunities of entrepreneurship, such that
students’ ability to reach and implement correct decisions is enhanced (or not).
(4) We propose that evaluations of education programs should be long term and compared with
appropriate control groups. We call for long term longitudinal research, in order to uncover
the effects of entrepreneurial education: it should not be expected that entrepreneurship edu-
cation to have immediate effects in the form of immediate venture employment and growth, irre-
spective of its orientation. However, indirectly and over time it is a precondition for sustainable
growth.

Let us further expand one of these propositions above. To what extent microeconomic support
structures contributes to the students’ learning and future development as an entrepreneur is some-
thing that also merits further study, not least because it can be assumed that this is the costliest
design of entrepreneurship education, and could have implications for subsequent start-ups. While
providing advice as well as financial support may increase the number of student applications to a
program, focusing on monetary support may have an inverse relationship to the long-term
success of ventures arising out of these programs. It may be positive, in helping students ‘train’ to
be entrepreneurs. But one can also identify possible negative impacts. Funding an idea through a
program could make students take the process of attracting investment less seriously, as this step
is a given in their education. Indeed, any supplementing or substituting of key ‘entrepreneurial’
skills by the program could radically affect how students perceive their own risk-taking, over-
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 13

confidence, idea assessment etc. To put it another way, in an entrepreneurship program, students
may benefit in the short run from playing without certain risks, but may have trouble adjusting to
the world outside the sandbox when the time comes to leave it.
Hence, future research should focus upon comparisons, which are important because how the
higher education configures their education program has consequences for the students’ post-edu-
cation readiness and willingness to start successful companies. Our interpretation follows: By offering
more advanced education, e.g. Theoretical and practical exposure vs. Classroom exposure, the univer-
sities make an active choice in what types of students they are trying to attract. Classroom exposure
entrepreneurship students may have no prior academic training in another discipline at the university
level, and thus the areas in which they might want to start companies might also be limited by their
educational background. Offering an Immersion as an entrepreneur training vs. Classroom exposure
training in entrepreneurship or related fields could attract different types of students with
differing level of ambitions, training, and visions of what type of venture should be created. Most cer-
tainly more technologically advanced companies would be the result of students who already
possess higher education degrees of that kind. Our analysis is focused upon the broad principles
of differentiation. We recognize that implications for policy-makers and educators are how the
designs affect later performance. Although we did not address these questions here, we do recognize
that different balances of theory and practice could have different outcomes for students’ readiness,
and for their ability to apply what they have learned from university to the real world.

Notes
1. This year closely coincided with the aforementioned governmental mapping and subsequent analysis of entre-
preneurship education in the country.
2. course elements, sometimes linked throughout several consecutive courses.
3. Indeed, monetary support within entrepreneurship education is relatively rare among HEIs. This role in entrepre-
neurship education has been found in the European case to be most often filled by financial institutions, outside
entrepreneurs, and stakeholder companies (Bischoff, Volkmann, and Audretsch 2018).
4. For instance, increased cognitive workload and autonomy during the degree process has been found to lead to
more innovative behavior in student’s post-graduation (Martín, Potočnik, and Fras 2017).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research was supported by the Sten A. Olsson Foundation for Research and Culture, Gothenburg, Sweden, in the
Research Programme ‘Radical Innovations for the Enhancement of the Swedish Economy’; and by the Riksbankens Jubi-
leumsfond, in the research program ‘How engineering sciences can impact industry in a global world, FSK15-1080:1’.
Both research projects were led by M. McKelvey.

ORCID
Olof Zaring http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0928-9376
Ethan Gifford http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6745-1397
Maureen McKelvey http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1457-7922

References
Archibugi, Daniele. 2001. “Pavitt’s Taxonomy Sixteen Years On: A Review Article.” Economics of Innovation and New
Technology 10: 415–425.
Bae, T. J., S. Qian, C. Miao, and J. O. Fiet. 2014. “The Relationship Between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial
Intentions: A Meta–Analytic Review.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38 (2): 217–254.
14 O. ZARING ET AL.

Barnard, A., T. Pittz, and J. Vanevenhoven. 2018. “Entrepreneurship Education in U.S. Community Colleges: A Review and
Analysis.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. doi:10.1108/JSBED-06-2018-0178.
Becker, G. 1964. Human Capital. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bischoff, K., C. K. Volkmann, and D. B. Audretsch. 2018. “Stakeholder Collaboration in Entrepreneurship Education: An
Analysis of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems of European Higher Educational Institutions.” Journal of Technology
Transfer 43 (1): 20–46.
Bjerke, B. 2013. About Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Caird, S. 1990. “What Does It Mean to be Enterprising?” British Journal of Management 1: 137–145.
Chrisman, J. W., E. McMullan, and J. Hall. 2005. “The Influence of Guided Preparation on the Long-Term Performance of
New Ventures.” Journal of Business Venturing 20: 769–791.
Co, M., and B. Mitchell. 2006. “Entrepreneurship Education in South Africa: A Nationwide Survey.” Education + Training 48
(5): 348–359.
Cumming, D., and E. Fischer. 2010. “Assessing the Impact of Publicly Funded Business Advisory Services on
Entrepreneurial Outcomes.” Osgoode-York Working Paper Series 2.2. York: Centre for Public Policy & Law.
Gartner, W. B., and K. H. Vesper. 1994. “Executive Forum: Experiments in Entrepreneurship Education: Successes and
Failures.” Journal of Business Venturing 9: 179–187.
Gorman, G., D. Hanlon, and W. King. 1997. “Some Research Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Education, Enterprise
Education and Education for Small Business Management: A Ten-Year Literature Review.” International Small
Business Journal 15: 56–77.
Greene, F. J., and G. Saridakis. 2008. “The Role of Higher Education Skills and Support in Graduate Self-Employment.”
Studies in Higher Education 33 (6): 653–672.
Holienka, M., J. Holienková, and P. Gál. 2015. “Entrepreneurial Characteristics of Students in Different Fields of Study: A
View from Entrepreneurship Education Perspective.” Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae
Brunensis 63 (6): 1879–1889.
Honig, B. 2004. “Entrepreneurship Education: Toward a Model of Contingency-Based Business Planning.” Academy of
Management Learning & Education 3 (3): 258–273.
Högskoleverket [Swedish National Agency for Higher Education]. 2008. Högskolan samverkar vidare: Utvecklingen 2004-
07. [University Collaboration Continues: Development 2004–07] Report 2008:10R. https://docplayer.se/5623940-
Hogskolan-samverkar-vidare.html.
Högskoleverket [Swedish National Agency for Higher Education]. 2009. Kartläggning av utbildning inom entreprenörskap
och innovation [Survey of Education in Entrepreneurship and Innovation]. Report 2009: 33.
Jansen, S., T. van de Zande, S. Brinkkemper, E. Stam, and V. Varma. 2015. “How Education, Stimulation, and Incubation
Encourage Student Entrepreneurship: Observations from MIT, IIIT, and Utrecht University.” The International Journal
of Management Education 13: 170–181.
Katz, J. A. 2003. “The Chronology and Intellectual Trajectory of American Entrepreneurship Education 1876–1999.” Journal
of Business Venturing 18: 283–300.
Katz, J. A. 2007. “Education and Training in Entrepreneurship.” In The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, edited by J. R. Baum,
M. Frese, and R. A. Baron, 203–235. Hillsdale: Eribaum.
Kuratko, D. F. 2005. “The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends, and Challenges.”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29: 577–597.
Lanero, A., J. L. Vázquez, P. Gutiérrez, and M. Purificación García. 2011. “The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in
European Universities: An Intention-Based Approach Analyzed in the Spanish Area.” International Review on Public
and Nonprofit Marketing 8: 111–130.
Legendre, P., and L. Legendre. 2012. Numerical Ecology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV.
Maritz, A., C. Jones, and C. Shwetzer. 2015. “The Status of Entrepreneurship Education in Australian Universities.” Education +
Training 57: 1020–1035. doi:10.1108/ET-04-2015-0026.
Martin, B. C., J. J. McNally, and M. J. Kay. 2013. “Examining the Formation of Human Capital in Entrepreneurship: A Meta-
Analysis of Entrepreneurship Education Outcomes.” Journal of Business Venturing 28: 211–224.
Martín, P., K. Potočnik, and A. B. Fras. 2017. “Determinants of Students’ Innovation in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher
Education 42 (7): 1229–1243.
Millán, J. M., E. Congregado, C. Román, M. van Praag, and A. van Stel. 2014. “The Value of an Educated Population for an
Individual’s Entrepreneurship Success.” Journal of Business Venturing 29: 612–632.
Mwasalwiba, E. S. 2010. “Entrepreneurship Education: A Review of its Objectives, Teaching Methods, and Impact
Indicators.” Education+Training 52 (1): 20–47.
Nabi, G., A. Walmsley, F. Liñán, I. Akhtar, and C. Neame. 2018. “Does Entrepreneurship Education in the First Year of Higher
Education Develop Entrepreneurial Intensions? The Role of Learning and Inspiration.” Studies in Higher Education 43
(3): 452–467.
O’Connor, A. 2013. “A Conceptual Framework for Entrepreneurship Education Policy: Meeting Government and Economic
Purposes.” Journal of Business Venturing 28: 546–563.
Oosterbeek, H., M. van Praag, and A. Ijsselstein. 2010. “The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurship
Skills and Motivation.” European Economic Review 54: 442–454.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 15

Peterman, N. E., and J. Kennedy. 2003. “Enterprise Education: Influencing Students’ Perceptions of Entrepreneurship.”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28: 129–144.
Plaschka, G. R., and H. P. Welsch. 1990. “Emerging Structures in Entrepreneurship Education: Curricula Designs and
Strategies.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14: 55–71.
Pons Rotger, G., M. Gørtz, and D. J. Storey. 2012. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Guided Preparation for new Venture
Creation and Performance: Theory and Practice.” Journal of Business Venturing 27: 506–521.
Regeringskansliet [Swedish Government Offices]. 2009. Strategi för entreprenörskap inom utbildningsområdet [Strategy
for Entrepreneurship within the Domain of Education].
Regeringskansliet [Swedish Government Offices]. 2013. Göteborg och Lund får spetsutbildningar i entreprenörskap
[Gothenburg and Lund Receive Strategic Entrepreneurship Education Funding]. Press release, June 11, 2013.
Roman, T., and A. Maxim. 2017. “National Culture and Higher Education as Pre-Determining Factors of Student
Entrepreneurship.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (6): 993–1014.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2000. “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.” Academy of Management
Review 25: 217–226.
Solomon, G. 2007. “An Examination of Entrepreneurship Education in the United States.” Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development 14: 168–182. doi:10.1108/14626000710746637.
Solomon, G. T., S. Duffy, and A. Tarabishy. 2002. “The State of Entrepreneurship Education in the United States: A
Nationwide Survey and Analysis.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 1 (1): 65–86.
Thompson, J. L. 2004. “The Facets of the Entrepreneur: Identifying Entrepreneurial Potential.” Management Decision 42:
243–258. doi:10.1108/00251740410515861.
Tillväxtverket [Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth]. 2013. Slutrapport – Entreprenörskap i kulturella och
kreativa utbildningar [Final Report – Entrepreneurship in Cultural and Creative Education]. N 2010/8901/ENT. DNR 012-
2009-907386.
Universitetskanslersämbetet [Swedish Higher Education Authority]. 2013. Universiteten och högskolorna. Accessed
March 14, 2013. www.uka.se/fakta-om-hogskolan/universitet-och-hogskolor/.
Vesper, K., and W. McMullan. 1988. “Entrepreneurship: Today Courses, Tomorrow Degrees?” Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 13: 7–13.
von Graevenitz, G., D. Harhoff, and R. Weber. 2010. “The Effects of Entrepreneurship Education.” Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization 76: 90–112.
Ward, J. H. 1963. “Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function.” Journal of the American Statistical Association
58: 236–244.

Appendix 1

Table A1. Availability of entrepreneurship education in Sweden in 2013.

Provides entrepreneurship education (Group 1)
Beckmans College of Design
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Chalmers University of Technology
Dalarna University
Gammelkroppa School of Forestry
Gotland Universityb
Halmstad University
Jönköping University
Karolinska Institutet
Karlstad University
Konstfack University of Arts, Crafts and
Design
Kristianstad University
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Linköping University
Linnaeus University
Luleå University of Technology
Mid Sweden University
Royal College of Music in Stockholm
Royal Institute of Art
School of Dance and Circusa
Södertörn University
Stockholm Academy of Dramatic
Arts2
Stockholm School of Economics
Stockholm University
Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences
Umeå University
2
University College of Opera
University of Borås
University of Gothenburg
University of Gävle
University of Skövde
University West
No such education (Group 2)
Erica Foundation
Ersta Sköndal University College
Evidens University College
Johannelund School of Theology
Newman Institute University College
Sophiahemmet University
Stockholm Academy of Psychotherapy
Education
Stockholm School of Theology
Swedish Defence University
Swedish Institute for Cognitive
Psychotherapy
Swedish Red Cross University College
Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences
University College of Music Education in
Stockholm
Örebro School of Theology

(Continued)
16 O. ZARING ET AL.

Table A1. Continued.

Provides entrepreneurship education (Group 1) No such education (Group 2)
Lund University Uppsala University
Mälardalen University Örebro University
Malmö University College
a
From 2014 a part of Stockholm University of the Arts.
b
From July 2013 a part of Uppsala University.