Enterprise Education in Vocational

Education A Comparative Study

Between Italy and Australia 1st Edition
Daniele Morselli (Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/enterprise-education-in-vocational-education-a-comp
arative-study-between-italy-and-australia-1st-edition-daniele-morselli-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Change Laboratory for Teacher Training in

Entrepreneurship Education A New Skills Agenda for
Europe Daniele Morselli

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-change-laboratory-for-
teacher-training-in-entrepreneurship-education-a-new-skills-
agenda-for-europe-daniele-morselli/

Comparative Perspectives on Early Childhood Education

Reforms in Australia and China Josephine Ng

https://textbookfull.com/product/comparative-perspectives-on-
early-childhood-education-reforms-in-australia-and-china-
josephine-ng/

Human Rights Education and Peacebuilding A comparative

study 1st Edition Holland Tracey Martin J Paul

https://textbookfull.com/product/human-rights-education-and-
peacebuilding-a-comparative-study-1st-edition-holland-tracey-
martin-j-paul/

Globalization Mass Education and Technical and

Vocational Education and Training Miriam Preckler
Galguera

https://textbookfull.com/product/globalization-mass-education-
and-technical-and-vocational-education-and-training-miriam-
preckler-galguera/
Comparative Analysis of ICT in Education Between China
and Central and Eastern European Countries Dejian Liu

https://textbookfull.com/product/comparative-analysis-of-ict-in-
education-between-china-and-central-and-eastern-european-
countries-dejian-liu/

The Wiley Handbook of Vocational Education and Training

David Guile

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-wiley-handbook-of-
vocational-education-and-training-david-guile/

Analysing Erasmus Vocational Education and Training

Funding in Europe Carlos De Olagüe-Smithson

https://textbookfull.com/product/analysing-erasmus-vocational-
education-and-training-funding-in-europe-carlos-de-olague-
smithson/

Comparative Politics 5th Edition Daniele Caramani

https://textbookfull.com/product/comparative-politics-5th-
edition-daniele-caramani/

Precarity and Vocational Education and Training:

Craftsmanship and Employability in Romania Maria-Carmen
Pantea

https://textbookfull.com/product/precarity-and-vocational-
education-and-training-craftsmanship-and-employability-in-
romania-maria-carmen-pantea/
Enterprise Education in Vocational Education
Palgrave Macmillan publishes the following similar titles in this area:

BUSINESS AND EDUCATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Edited by Nehme Azoury
ISBN 9781137396945
THE BUSINESS GROWTH BENEFITS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Edited by David Greenaway and Chris D. Rudd
ISBN 9781137320698
SHAPING THE FUTURE OF BUSINESS EDUCATION
Edited by Gordon M. Hardy and Daniel L. Everett
ISBN 9781137033376
INNOVATION IN BUSINESS EDUCATION IN EMERGING MARKETS
Edited by Ilan Alon, Victoria Jones and John R. McIntyre
ISBN 9781137292957
Enterprise Education in
Vocational Education
A Comparative Study Between Italy and
Australia

Daniele Morselli
University of Helsinki, Finland
© Daniele Morselli 2015
Foreword © Umberto Margiotta 2015
Foreword © Massimiliano Costa 2015
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2015 978-1-137-55259-4

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this

publication may be made without written permission.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2015 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN 978-1-349-55970-1 ISBN 978-1-137-55261-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9781137552617
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully
managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing
processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the
country of origin.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Contents

List of Tables, Figures and Photographs vi

Foreword by Umberto Margiotta x

Foreword by Massimiliano Costa xiii

Introduction 1

1 Why Entrepreneurship? 5

2 Learning Between School and Work 29

3 The Comparative Research 57

4 The Italian Change Laboratories 82

5 The Australian Change Laboratories 106

6 Italy and Australia: A Comparative Perspective 132

7 Conclusions: Vocational Education and Entrepreneurship

Education Face Their Common Zone of Proximal
Development 171

Notes 192

References 195

Index 206

v
Tables, Figures and Photographs

Tables

1.1 General unemployment and youth unemployment rates

(per cent) in key OECD countries 8
2.1 The European key competences for lifelong learning 40
2.2 The 7th European key competence on the sense of
initiative and entrepreneurship 41
2.3 Definition of entrepreneur, entrepreneurial activity and
entrepreneurship 43
2.4 Twelve basic rules about entrepreneurship a high school
student should learn 46
2.5 The phases of expansive learning 52
3.1 Timeline of the overall project 61
3.2 Field research in Italy and Australia 65
3.3 The Change Laboratory workshops in numbers 66
3.4 Type of mirror materials shown to the participants in
Italy and Australia 71
3.5 The follow up actions in Italy and Australia 73
3.6 Descriptors of knowledge, skills and attitudes related to
the 7th European key competence of the sense of
initiative and entrepreneurship used in the multiple
choice questionnaire 76
3.7 Examples of descriptors of the EQF levels utilized in the
questionnaire for knowledge and skills 79
3.8 The five open questions used in the qualitative part of the
questionnaire 80
4.1 Fifth meeting, mirror material. The sense of initiative in
the Australian school 97
5.1 Charter of learning and teaching on general skills at the
Catholic Regional College 108
5.2 Certificate II in Community Services delivered at the
school. Example of grid used to assess the student’s
employability skills 110
5.3 Certificate III in Childcare jointly delivered by the
RTO and the school. Observational grid used by the

vi
 List of Tables, Figures and Photographs vii

teacher to assess the student’s performance in the

workplace 111
5.4 Points 5 and 6 of the memorandum sent by the RTO to
the Certificate III Childcare students during the second
term 113
5.5 First workshop, mirror material. Outcomes of a meeting
between the VET coordinators and the RTO’s
teacher/course coordinator. Changes the Certificate III in
Childcare would undergo the following year 115
5.6 Transcription of part of the first meeting 117
5.7 Transcription of part of the second meeting 120
5.8 Sixth meeting, mirror material. Summary of the interview
with the RTO’s childcare centre director 127
6.1 Comparison of the two settings where the study was
conducted 133
6.2 Comparison of the knowledge, skills, habits of the
competence on the sense of initiative and
entrepreneurship 136
6.3 Comparison of Australia and Italy. Students’ perceived
level of knowledge according to the EQF descriptors 137
6.4 Comparison of Australia and Italy. Students’ perceived
level of skills according to the EQF descriptors 138
6.5 Comparison of Australia and Italy. Students’ perceived
level of habits 139
6.6 Open question on how to improve the overall project
(work experience plus Change Laboratory) in Italy 151
6.7 Open question on how to improve the Certificate III in
Childcare 152

Figures

3.1 The Engestrom triangle (1987, p. 78) is used by the

students to illustrate their workplace 70
4.1 Example of students’ group work. Representation of
their workplace in terms of the Engestrom triangle 87
4.2 Second meeting. Schedule of the workshop 88
4.3 Second meeting. Group work made by the students 91
4.4 Third meeting, mirror material. Entry questionnaire on
the sense of initiative and entrepreneurship, figures for
knowledge 92
4.5 Third meeting. Group work made by the students 94
viii List of Tables, Figures and Photographs

4.6 Seventh meeting, mirror material. Diagram representing

the historical evolution of work experience at the school 100
5.1 Second meeting. Summary of the first workshop. The
Engestrom triangle is used to show work activity in the
workplace seen from the student’s point of view 119
5.2 Fourth meeting. School and workplace seen as two
interacting activity systems 123
5.3 Fifth meeting. Brainstorming on how to make the
teacher’s handover easier 125
5.4 Sixth meeting. The problem the young people are facing
(are they students or workers?) is conceptualized as
contradictions in the activity system through the
Engestrom triangle 128
6.1 Comparison of Australia and Italy. First open question:
What is a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship? 142
6.2 Comparison of Australia and Italy. Second open
question: What do you think you have gained from
participation in the Change Laboratory? 144
6.3 Comparison of Australia and Italy. Third open question:
What do you think the strengths of the Change
Laboratory are? 145
6.4 Comparison of Australia and Italy. Factual benefits of
the Change Laboratory 146
6.5 Comparison of Australia and Italy. Relational benefits of
the Change Laboratory 147
6.6 Comparison of Australia and Italy. Fourth open
question: What do you think the weaknesses of the
Change Laboratory are? 149
6.7 Diagram on the sense of initiative according to the
students 153
6.8 Banner made by the first group of students on the ideal
work experience 155
6.9 Banner made by the second group of students on the
ideal work experience 157
6.10 Poster made by the students during the fifth workshop
on the perfect teacher 158
6.11 Poster on mutual expectations made by the students
during the sixth workshop 159
 List of Tables, Figures and Photographs ix

Photographs

4.1 Second meeting, mirror material. Students taking

measurements in a building under construction 89
4.2 Third meeting, mirror material. Work tutor negotiating
about progress with the subcontractors, the students
assisting 93
4.3 Seventh meeting. The video of the presentation of the
students at the building sites of Milan being projected as
mirror material during the Change Laboratory 102
Foreword
Umberto Margiotta

Over the last 20 years there have been a great number of studies about
the ways in which traditional learning is considered, both in forma-
tive and school contexts. Three types of issues have emerged from
considering the formative success of the individual:

a) Cognitive problems: the competencies acquired in the school con-

text are rarely utilized to deal with experiences and problems in life
contexts;
b) Social problems: the individuals generally privilege the models of
social success rather than the models acquired in situations of formal
learning; and
c) Diffusive innovation deficit: both companies and educational insti-
tutions are enterprises dealing with “the distribution of knowledge
and rules”, where competencies that cannot be learned elsewhere
are acquired.

As a consequence, our society appears segmented. The continuity

between formative contexts and work and life environments does not
proceed in an orderly fashion. On the contrary, a deep division is
produced between formal intelligence and practical intelligence.
I followed Daniele Morselli’s project with growing interest, since it is
related to the issues above. I observed the way he was nurturing a mean-
ingful research programme, and the work he presents on his workshop
on entrepreneurship education in this book illustrates the elements of
such a programme. The programme starts from the observation that
the relationship between training and agentivity is rapidly changing;
every person has the frequent need to reorganize and reinvent his or
her knowledge, competences and work. This is the reason that the goal
of education cannot be to pursue the development of techniques and
skills, but rather to accompany one’s personal learning, so that it can
evolve into a system of boundary crossing actions to allow each indi-
vidual to deal with and master the uncertain and mutable trajectories of
change within specific situations.

x
 Foreword by Umberto Margiotta xi

How can we understand the modalities and shapes of such learning?

The originality of Morselli’s proposal stems from this point: starting
from the third generation of activity theory, Morselli shows how
Engestrom’s theory of expansive learning differs significantly from the
other contemporary theories of adult learning such as Mezirov’s the-
ory, the theoretical framework of the community of practice by Wenger
and, especially, Kolb’s theory of experiential learning. From these differ-
ences Morselli designs, experiments and generalizes his workshops for
entrepreneurship education.
The most important difference from the expansive learning theory
and the other learning theories is that every human activity is char-
acterized by the participation of the individuals in complex contexts
of collective action that comprehend diverse entities in relation to
one another, such as subjects, mediational artefacts, community, rules
and procedures, division of labour, results and object. In so doing, the
paradigm of distributed cognition analyses cognition and learning by
representing them as collective activities mediated by not only cul-
tural artefacts (tools and signs), but also rules, community and division
of labour. Learning is therefore much more than Kolb’s paradigm of
experience, and much more than the phenomenology of individual
transformation as described by Mezirov. The perspective of expansive
learning frees the analysis and the evaluation of meaningful learning
from Rousseauist naturalistic revisionism. Learning is characterized as a
process of transfer gained through the interaction of systems made of
collective entities.
The perspective inspected by Morselli considers the transactional per-
spective (besides the dialogical perspective) between activity systems,
and allows the freeing of the concept of entrepreneurship from its
neoliberal and volontarist drifts which are unfortunately still promi-
nent today. I have always reminded Morselli that the conceptual focus
of his research was on enterprise education as a pedagogy, rather than
on entrepreneurship, a term reckoned to be more “fashionable”. The
concept of boundary crossing results not only in the way two activ-
ity systems meet and ‘contaminate’ each other, as stated by Wenger.
Boundary crossing also depends by the generativity of learning for both
individuals and for collective entities. By generative I mean that learn-
ing generates new horizons, new possibilities and new trajectories of life
and cognition.
Most importantly, it is not possible to confuse Engestrom’s expan-
sive learning with Wenger’s community of practice. The latter studies
the processes of acquisition of knowledge in adult groups basing on the
xii Foreword by Umberto Margiotta

conception of learning as participation in situated and contextualized

practices. In so doing, learning dynamically interacts with the processes
of construction of the individual identity. It is a social theory of learn-
ing inspired by Vygotskian reflections, whereby social participation
is characterized by learning and knowing. However, Wenger’s theory
does not explain in a transactive and generative way the learning
transformations.
Yet by following Engestrom, Morselli illustrates how it is possi-
ble, within formative workshop contexts, to overcome the dichotomy
between organizational learning and organizational transformation.
In order to trigger expansive learning cycles in an environment, the
individuals have to deal with the internal contradictions characteriz-
ing the organization and confront them. The learning actions related
to expansive learning are realized through collective and recursive
processes of negotiation of meanings.
We cannot but wish that the author continues his research pro-
gramme, since it certainly brings advancement to pedagogy and edu-
cational research.

Umberto Margiotta
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
Foreword
Massimiliano Costa

In this day and age the job market calls not only for the development
of new and complex professional skills and abilities, but also for a pro-
fessional competency needed to master ever-changing problems in the
best way.
It is the role of education to provide young people with the
competencies needed in society, education that could and should be
delivered according to a capability approach as developed by Sen. The
main focus of the capability approach is on what people are able to
do – that is, are capable of. Agency freedom is a core ingredient of posi-
tive social change: individuals can act to bring about changes valued as
important for them and their communities. The collective spaces where
individuals can discuss and make decisions about things they value as
important are vital to improving their capabilities.
Nurturing the students’ agency does not only mean giving them the
necessary practical knowledge through which to master different situ-
ations. More importantly, agency entails an openness to change, the
readiness to reflect upon experience, an intellectual activity beyond
action, the willingness to learn and work with others in the work-
place, and being able to conjugate thinking and action. This vision of
agency goes well beyond a neoliberal perspective based on the func-
tional needs of a school oriented to the job market, and promotes
the student’s creative freedom when confronted with problems in the
work or school contests. Agency becomes the ability to make use of
resources, preferences, attitudes and values towards the student’s future
projects: professional choices in employed or self-employed jobs that are
important to them.
The role of education in promoting an entrepreneurial mindset has
recently gained importance within the European strategies for employ-
ment: the sense of initiative and entrepreneurship is defined by the
European Union as a set of knowledge, skills and habits needed to
turn ideas into action. As Morselli observes, the entrepreneurial com-
petence represents “a mindset that can help the students and future
citizens to be entrepreneurial throughout their life in the different activ-
ities they will undertake: in the family, in the workplace, or in their

xiii
xiv Foreword by Massimiliano Costa

social life”. The spirit of initiative, a proactive attitude, creative thinking,

entrepreneurial capability and the ability to manage risks constitute the
kernel of these strategic intangible competences activating the agency
needed to master problems beyond the technical competencies from a
lifelong learning perspective. As Morselli writes: “The competence of the
sense of initiative and entrepreneurship is primarily about agency. [ . . . .]
[E]specially at an employability level, [it] was reported as related to being
autonomous, as well as cooperating with others. There is no doubt that
this competence is mostly mobilized in the workplace; however the par-
ticipants said that it can also be put into practice in every context of
daily life and hence in a lifelong learning perspective.”
In the interesting research carried out by Morselli between Italy and
Australia, it seems that, although the two contexts differ significantly,
the Change Laboratory, a promising type of workshop bringing about
social change and innovation, enabled the students the chance to learn
from work experience. The Change Laboratory helped the students
enhance their ability to interpret information, starting from discus-
sion with the stakeholders, when confronted with relevant problems.
Morselli highlights this by stating that “Students also need to be pro-
vided with participatory spaces where they can discuss and reflect on the
issues important for them, so that they can make informed decisions.
In addition to creating new opportunities, this process also expands the
students’ positive freedom, autonomy and personal initiative.”
The model put forward by Morselli in this book displays how the
enhancement of the learning curriculum arrived at through workbased
learning is related to the capacity to involve students to discuss and
reflect on the learning relationships between being actively involved in
the workplace and studying in class. This model encourages students to
become “critical anthropologists” of the practice they take part in, both
in the workplace as apprentices and in school as students.
The experimental evidence of Morselli’s research shows that an expe-
rience in the work environment is formative if, together with the
acquisition of technical competencies, the student is given responsi-
bility and realizes him- or herself according to a capability approach:
this requires a new modality to design work-based learning models,
which should be centred on participative dialectics with work tutors
and school teachers. As highlighted by Morselli, the value of experi-
ence comes from the creation of “collective spaces where students, their
teachers and mentors can work together at the boundary and reflect on
how to bridge school and work, and improve the quality of the train-
ing delivered”. The Change Laboratory workshops in Australia and Italy
 Foreword by Massimiliano Costa xv

were felt by the students and all the participants involved to be places
of active participation instead of – as often happens – being worthless
and unconnected with the students’ objectives. It is thus important to
value the relationship between the teaching staff and the work tutors,
ensuring not only adequate training, but also their generative interac-
tion with the students – that is, an interaction generating new ideas,
concepts and courses of action.
Overall, Morselli’s contribution indicates a new path for educational
policies according to a capability approach centred on the role of the
student and his or her participative, critical and reflective abilities. From
this point of view, training for the entrepreneurial competence enhances
one’s levels of social awareness, participation and responsibility, thus
enhancing one’s personal and professional life projects.

Massimiliano Costa
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
Introduction

Homo faber fortunae suae.

Appius Claudius Caecus

The words attributed to Appius Claudius Caecus enjoy a widespread

and unique popularity, and are often used to express the idea that
humankind is the manufacturer of its own destiny. Nowadays, modern
education systems are confronting the issue of how to teach students
to turn ideas into actions. This requires autonomy, creativity, initiative
and the capacity to seize opportunities. This is called entrepreneurship
education, and it is the type of education necessary for a citizen living
in the era of globalization to be the manufacturer of his or her own des-
tiny. Homo faber is also useful as it evokes the image of the craftsperson
(faber literally means blacksmith). In this regard, the modern institu-
tion preparing craftspeople for working life is vocational education and
training (VET). Hence, homo faber characterizes the very subject of this
research: enterprise education in vocational education.
This comparative project has been written for the international reader
interested in modern vocational systems, such as the Australian and
the Italian systems. Entrepreneurship education and vocational educa-
tion are considered key elements in combating youth unemployment
and helping students face and thrive on the challenges of globalization.
Other challenges they will be faced with include climate change and
the consequent need for green technologies and economies. At the same
time, when turning these challenges into opportunities, young people
will have to create value and empower their communities. It is for this
reason that improving vocational students’ capabilities was another aim
of this research.
Here it is argued that the 7th European key competence of the
sense of initiative and entrepreneurship can be examined through a

1
2 Enterprise Education in Vocational Education

sociocultural laboratory of social change called the Change Laboratory.

Vocational students are seen as boundary crossers, as in their vocational
courses they often cross the boundaries between school and work. The
boundary is characterized by tensions (and thus problems) due to differ-
ent sociocultural environments encountering diverse objectives, rules,
divisions of labour, communities, tools and outcomes. These tensions
can also be considered a resource, and thus a learning opportunity for
students to show a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship. In this
study, the challenges students are facing are discussed within the
Change Laboratory workshops, together with teachers and work tutors
(representatives of the two interacting activity systems), in a joint effort
to redesign the activity systems of school and work and the relationship
between them.
Results from the two very different vocational contexts in Australia
and Italy permitted a comparison to better understand the elements
that encourage a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship in vocational
education.
This study is divided into six chapters.
Chapter 1 presents the problem. According to many scholars, since
the 1970s the prominent role of knowledge as the driver of innovation
and change has determined a dramatic switch from a managed society
to an entrepreneurial society, characterized by extremely dynamic small
and medium enterprises. In this context, citizens must be equipped
with a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship (which is essentially
about “turning ideas into action”) in order to master globalization and
change from a lifelong learning perspective. Entrepreneurship teaching
is essential to improving the quality of vocational education and thus
combat youth unemployment, a phenomenon widespread in Europe
and elsewhere.
Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature to frame the research
project. The main research streams are: the concept of competence
and its developments; sociocultural studies on expertise seen as bound-
ary crossing; a critical analysis of the introduction of the competence
concept in education; sense of initiative and entrepreneurship as a
European key competence for lifelong learning; entrepreneurship teach-
ing in vocational education; and the Change Laboratory within Cultural
Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to bring about expansive learning and
social change.
Chapter 3 outlines the methodological framework, and considers the
practical details of the research. It is concerned with the timeline for the
research in Italy and Australia, including the request for authorizations;
 Introduction 3

the observant participation; the Change Laboratory workshops; and the

follow up. Concerning the follow up, the same chapter will present
the questionnaire used to gather data on the educational and socio-
economic outcomes of the research. The questionnaire is divided into
two parts. The first part is made up of multiple-choice questions
on the 7th European key competence on the sense of initiative and
entrepreneurship. Following this, to better investigate the meaning
attributed by the participants to the experience, the second part of
the questionnaire comprises open questions on the 7th European key
competence and the Change Laboratory.
Chapter 4 describes the outcomes of each of the Change Labora-
tory workshops in Italy and Australia. This is preceded by a historical
analysis of the context as well as the way in which entrepreneurship
education was delivered in the two settings. Consistent with the prin-
ciples of CHAT, a historical analysis is necessary to better understand
the meaning given by the participants to the sense of initiative and
entrepreneurship as well as the Change Laboratory workshops.
The following chapters focus on the results and deal with the com-
parative study and the conclusions. Chapter 5 starts by comparing the
quantitative and qualitative answers in the two contexts and then com-
ments on the results. This entails: a comparison and synthesis of the
banners made by the students in the light of the Engestrom triangle;
considerations on the role of triggering events in entrepreneurship edu-
cation and learning processes at the boundary; and the answers to the
multiple-choice and open questions.
Chapter 6 summarizes the entire study, starting with the issue
confronted, youth unemployment and the role of entrepreneurship
education and vocational education in a globalized society. It also
describes the comparative study and presents the main findings. The
chapter then identifies connections between the cultural approaches
to entrepreneurship, the Change Laboratory and the capabilities
approach. Next the chapter identifies the common Zone of Proximal
Development of vocational education and the sense of initiative and
entrepreneurship. Two proposals for future research are put forward.
Suggestions are given on how to improve the Australian and Italian VET
systems.
This work has been supervised by two people: Massimiliano Costa,
research fellow at the Ca’ Foscari University, and John Polesel, Profes-
sor at the Melbourne Graduate School for Education. Massimiliano and
John’s suggestions have been complementary. Massimiliano assisted this
project and contributed very much to improving its content with his
4 Enterprise Education in Vocational Education

useful advice. His knowledge of educational processes within the indus-

try and of competence has been extraordinarily important to grounding
this work on a solid basis. John’s suggestions have been essential as well.
John has helped in planning the research and establishing the structure
of the work. His knowledge of vocational education and comparative
educational policies has been invaluable. Special thanks goes to the two
reviewers: Yrjo Engestrom of the University of Helsinki and Giuditta
Alessandrini of the University Roma Tre.
1
Why Entrepreneurship?

The impact of globalization on our lives

The world is currently living through one of the most extraordinary

moments in human history. According to Volkmann et al. (2009, p. 6),
“the power equation continues shifting across countries and regions,
while rapid changes unfold in the marketplace reshaping both the
political landscape and the interactions between governments and busi-
nesses”. It has been argued that our societies are becoming more and
more open and plural (Cárdenas Gutiérrez & Bernal Guerrero, 2011):
within societies, individuals have more opportunities to realize their
dreams and their space for action and initiative is improving.
A new definition of human development has come to the fore:
“[A]gainst the dominant emphasis on economic growth as an indi-
cator of a nation’s quality of life, Sen [an Indian philosopher and
economist who wrote about social justice] has insisted on the impor-
tance of the capabilities, what people are actually able to do and to
be” (Nussbaum, 2003, p. 33). Human development is seen as a match
between the ideas of development and substantial freedom: a “process
of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy” (Sen, 1999, p. 9).
In addition to economic assets, human development depends on social
assets, such as welfare and education systems, and political ones, such
as civil rights and political participation. The freedom to act is repre-
sented by the possibilities and opportunities to access diverse courses of
action due to individual resources and values. The centrality of the sub-
ject with their freedom to act is thus emphasized: thanks to their agency
based on their capacities, the individual becomes the trigger for social
and economic development, this time inclusive, sustainable and smart
(Costa, 2012).

5
6 Enterprise Education in Vocational Education

In this context of the expansion of individual freedom, the paradigm

of the “entrepreneurial society” is emerging: “[T]he old paradigm of
the twentieth century is being replaced with the new paradigm of the
entrepreneurial society – a society which rewards creative adaptation,
opportunity seeking and the drive to make innovative ideas happen”
(Bahri & Haftendorn, 2006, p. IX). The “knowledge era” in which we
are living is characterized by the knowledge society and the knowl-
edge economy, and the “knowledge mindset” (Badawi, 2013) becomes
important to help the individual “navigate today’s uncertainties and
tomorrow’s unknown developments, not only in labour markets but in
all aspects of life” (p. 277).
According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment (OECD), one of the most important changes across societies
has been the shift from a “managed” economy to an “entrepreneurial”
one (OECD, 2010c). The former was found in mass production societies
characterized by “stable employment in large firms and a central role of
unions and employers in regulating the economy and society in partner-
ship with government. The social contract included regulation of labour
markets and a strong welfare state” (p. 31). This type of society was pre-
dominant in the post-Second World War era thanks to the advantages
of large companies and large scale production (Audretsch, 2003). How-
ever, the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has
been growing since the 1970s in North America and in Europe. The
emergence of small niches in the markets, the rapid obsolescence of
goods and computer-driven production have made it possible for small
companies to compete with the larger ones, taking away most of the
competitive advantages big firms used to have. Together with this shift,
other changes have occurred: “[T]he growth of the knowledge econ-
omy, open innovation, increased global connections, non-technological
innovation, the Silicon Valley business model, and social innovation
and entrepreneurship – represent an important change in the environ-
ment in which innovation takes place” (OECD, 2010c, p. 31). In both
advanced and developing economies, the shift to a knowledge society
has made knowledge the most important factor of production. In this
shift, SMEs have become more competitive due to their ability to be
flexible. All these changes have contributed to the emergence of a new
economy in which SMEs and entrepreneurship play a crucial role as
drivers of innovation growth and creators of jobs (OECD, 2010c).
At the same time, societies are facing global changes extending well
beyond the economy, and global competitiveness is making demands
on governance, organization and lifestyle structures.
 Why Entrepreneurship? 7

In recent years, the economic fortunes of different countries around

the world have become less predictable as national economies
become more closely woven together. Companies look for locations
with the cheapest operating costs, while capital moves quickly across
national borders seeking the highest return. Many population groups
find themselves moving to follow employment opportunities or to
secure a better quality of life.
(Bahri & Haftendorn, 2006, p. IX)

There is a need to prepare young people for a life of greater uncer-

tainty and complexity, including elements such as frequent occupa-
tional changes in job and type of contract; improved mobility; the
need to cope with different cultures; the increased probability of self-
employment; and more responsibilities, both in family and in social
life (Gibb, 2002). Moreover, in the Western economies, phenomena like
delocalization have reduced the number of jobs available in manufac-
turing. At the same time, the level of skills necessary to work in industry
is getting wider and deeper:

The world’s population is growing at a time when traditional, stable

labour markets are shrinking. In developed and developing coun-
tries alike, rapid globalization and technological change have altered
both how national economies are organized and what is produced.
Countries differ widely in their restructuring practices, but redundan-
cies, unemployment and lack of gainful employment opportunities
have been some of the main social costs of recent economic changes
around the world.
(Bahri & Haftendorn, 2006, p. 1)

In this scenario, in many countries young people are often left behind.

The issue of youth unemployment

According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), five years

after the beginning of the global financial crisis, global growth
has started decelerating again and unemployment has risen, leaving
202 million jobless people in 2013 (ILO, 2014). The current trend is
expected to continue, and by 2018 there will be 215 million jobseek-
ers. Young people have particularly suffered the consequences of the
crisis with 6.4 million dropping out from the job market in 2012 alone
(ILO, 2012a). It has been calculated that 74.5 million young people were
8 Enterprise Education in Vocational Education

Table 1.1 General unemployment and youth unemployment rates (per cent) in
key OECD countries

2004 2007 2010 2013 2015

Forecast

Age 15–64 15–24 15–64 15–24 15–64 15–24 15–64 15–24 15–64

Italy 8.1 23.5 6.2 20.3 8.5 27.9 12.4 40.0 12.5
Germany 10.4 12.6 8.7 11.7 7.2 9.7 5.4 7.9 4.9
EU-28 9.3 19.0 7.2 15.7 9.7 21.1 10.9 23.3 11.4
OECD 7.0 13.7 5.8 12.0 8.5 16.7 8.1 16.2 7.2
average
Australia 5.5 11.4 4.5 9.4 5.3 11.5 5.8 12.2 6.0
United 5.6 11.8 4.7 10.5 9.8 18.4 6.9 13.5 6.0
States

Source: OECD Employment and Labour Market Statistics (http://www.oecd.org/statistics/).

without a job in 2013 (ILO, 2013). Moving from global figures for unem-
ployment to the OECD countries, the crisis has been particularly severe
in some of the most developed countries. In OECD countries in May
2012, for example, 48 million people (equivalent to a rate of 7.9 per
cent) were unemployed, 15 million more than in 2007 (OECD, 2012b).
Table 1.1 summarizes the figures for joblessness for key OECD countries
from 2004 to 2013 with the forecast for 2015.
The table displays the figures for unemployment for four key coun-
tries (Australia, Italy, Germany and the United States), the EU-28 and the
OECD average before and during the global crisis. For each year taken
into consideration, the left column indicates the overall unemployment
figure, while the right column represents the youth unemployment rate.
In 2013, while the Australian unemployment rate was two percentage
points below the OECD average, whereas the unemployment rate in
Italy was four points above it with Italian youth unemployment being
24 points greater than the OECD average for youth unemployment. The
overall 2015 forecast for OECD countries predicts that unemployment
figures will fall slightly, whilst joblessness will continue to increase for
Europe.
In Italy and Australia, which are the focus of this research, the OECD
(2012b) suggests that the employment outlook is expected to be quite
different. In Italy, which has been hit hard by the crisis, unemployment
has been concentrated among youth and low-skilled workers. A com-
prehensive reform was implemented in 2012 with the aim of combating
the segmentation of the labour market, and this is likely to mitigate
 Why Entrepreneurship? 9

the social effects of the crisis. On the other hand, it can be said that
Australia has weathered the impact of the crisis better, its joblessness rate
being one of the lowest of the OCED countries (OECD, 2012b). However,
underemployment is still a major problem, especially for women. Fur-
thermore, the labour share has been declining since the 1990s, and the
corresponding bargaining power of workers has shrunk.
All in all, youth joblessness is a problem that is common to every
nation. In the OECD countries, youth joblessness is at least double the
overall rate of unemployment (OECD, 2013). During the years preced-
ing the global downturn, its rate had decreased from 16 per cent in
the mid-1990s to 14 per cent in the mid-2000s (Quintini, Martin, &
Martin, 2007). In May 2012, youth unemployment rose to more than
16 per cent. A consequence of this is the increasing rate of long-term
joblessness: in 2011, 35 per cent of the overall unemployed had spent
at least one year seeking a job. This figure rockets to 44 per cent in the
European Union (OECD, 2012b). The Southern European countries have
the largest percentage of youth at risk (Quintini, 2012). Governments
are pushed to take vigorous action against the risk that poor transitions
from school to work create in generating social and economic marginal-
ity (Quintini, 2011). Not all young people have a satisfying transition
from school to work. Those who do not can be divided into two groups.
The first group is the “left behind youth” (OECD, 2010b): they lack a
certificate or diploma; they come from remote or rural areas; and/or
they belong to disadvantaged minorities such as immigrants. As many
of them are aged from 15 to 29, they may fall into the category of the
so-called “NEET” (neither in employment, nor in education or training).
The second group is the “poorly integrated new entrants”. Even if they
have some kind of qualification, they end up finding temporary jobs,
thus alternating between periods of employment and unemployment
even during economic growth.
Overall, the crisis has shown how the problems in the youth labour
market are structurally linked to education and training (OECD, 2012a).
Tom Karmel, director of the Australian National Centre for Vocational
Education Research (NCVER), suggests that nowadays there is “over-
whelming agreement on the importance of education and training in
the downturn, and this is driven by short-term considerations – the
need to keep young people usefully engaged – and long-term consid-
erations – the need to have skilled people in the future” (in Sweet, 2009,
p. 3). In developed economies, young people can choose to undertake
further education to postpone their entrance into the job market, thus
hoping to get a better job when they finish their school path (ILO,
10 Enterprise Education in Vocational Education

2012b). However, further training and human capital development do

not necessarily lead to better or more occupations. As the markets are
undergoing rapid changes, the training systems are struggling to catch
up, and often students do not have the skills required by industry
(ILO, 2012b). Dropout rates are another issue in many countries. In this
regard, vocational programmes suffer from higher dropout figures when
compared to general education programmes (OECD, 2010a).

Focus on youth unemployment in Europe

According to the European Centre for the Development of Vocational
Training (CEDEFOP), although young people have been progressively
shrinking in number and becoming more educated, they are experienc-
ing difficult transitions into the job market in many European countries
(Cedefop, 2013b): in 2013, 5.6 million youths aged from 15 to 24
were unemployed (Cedefop, 2014). One out of five young unemployed
Europeans has never worked, and 75 per cent of these are under 35
years old. As stated by the European Commission (2012c), they need
further consideration and help for at least three reasons. First, their sit-
uation is more challenging in comparison to that of adults, and it has
been deteriorating over time. Young people face high unemployment
rates and are increasingly affected by long-term unemployment as well
as labour market segmentation. Second, there are negative long-term
implications of unemployment at a young age, such as the increased
probability of future unemployment, the reduced level of future earn-
ings and the higher probability of working in an unstable job. Third,
such negative effects go well beyond work perspectives, encompassing
health status, life expectancy and participation in social and civil life.
In the Baltic States and in the Mediterranean countries, for example,
there is a danger of entering poverty and little probability of exiting
from it. Quintini and Manfredi (2009) discuss diverse types of tran-
sitions from education to the job market in several OECD countries.
In countries like Germany with regulated labour markets and efficient
apprenticeships, roughly 80 per cent of the students find a job. In other
countries with regulated labour markets but no work-based training
within formal education, such transitions prove to be much more com-
plicated. This is the case in Italy and Spain. Employers in these countries
tend to hire young people without experience because of their lower
labour expenses. This has led to a division of job markets: on the
one hand there are well-paid permanent jobs, and on the other hand
there are also unstable jobs with poor prospects and protection (OECD,
2010b).
 Why Entrepreneurship? 11

One of the main causes of this is skills mismatch, an issue which can
be seen throughout Europe, especially in the Mediterranean countries,
with over-education affecting 30 per cent of the youth (Cedefop, 2012b).
Recent analysis by the European Central Bank (in European Commis-
sion, 2012c) shows how skills mismatches are related to unemployment
and are caused by structural imbalances between job demand and sup-
ply rather than a lack of geographical mobility. In other words, more
highly educated workers do not raise issues of over-qualification as long
as industry is able to create a good number of jobs requiring highly edu-
cated and innovative workers. It is evident that countries with higher
levels of vertical skills mismatches (over- or under-qualification) have
some common features (European Commission, 2012b). One is that
they have lower levels of public funding in education. This could com-
promise their capacity to answer to changing requirements of the labour
market. Another is that a large share of stakeholders think that the
education and training system does not accomplish the needs of the
industry. Finally, such countries have rigid job markets, and invest less
in job market programmes. In recent decades, the job market in Europe
has been reshaped for three main reasons (Cedefop, 2012a). First, tech-
nological progress has brought an increased demand for highly skilled
workers. Second, delocalization, that is, the production of goods in
developing countries, has caused many unskilled jobs to disappear in
Europe. Third, the rapid obsolescence of skills is magnified in an aging
society. A further influencing factor is the need for new skills required by
the advancing green economy. A possible strategy to combat skills mis-
match is through higher education in general and specifically through
vocational education that provides skills in line with demands made by
industry (Cedefop, 2012b).
The European Commission’s youth opportunities initiative (within
Europe 2020’s flagship Youth on the Move) has requested the Member
States to implement policies so that young people are made a job offer
within four months of finishing school. This could be either an appren-
ticeship or an education opportunity. Europe 2020 – An Agenda for New
Skills and Jobs – and the Bruges Communiqué both emphasize the need
to invest in young people’s skills so that they are relevant to industry.
Moreover, both documents underline the role of vocational education
and training (VET). In this respect, many Member States are searching
for new policies combining vocational education and labour market
services for both the unemployed and new labour market entrants
(European Commission, 2011). The principle underlying such policies
is that unemployment can be tackled by improving one’s competencies,
12 Enterprise Education in Vocational Education

capabilities and individual motivations, as well as the (re)insertion into

active life which is, most of the time, working life (Costa, 2012). Not
only do these policies call for a different action from the state, but also
from the citizen, who is seen as being aware and participative. Drawing
on Sen’s capabilities approach, Costa suggests that the worker’s com-
petent action should be seen in terms of means – that is, agency and
substantial freedom – rather than ends such as productivity or level of
income. The value of the action stems from the breadth of the possible
choices.

Technical and vocational education and training can

combat youth unemployment

In this situation, education in general and technical and vocational edu-

cation and training (TVET1 ) in particular can play a primary role in
effectively preparing young people to live in our fast changing soci-
eties. Through its TVET strategy (2012–2015), UNESCO acknowledges
the value of vocational education to address youth joblessness, socio-
economic inequality and sustainable development (UNESCO-UNEVOC,
2014). According to the Shanghai Consensus:

[C]rises such as the food, fuel and financial crises, as well as natural
and technological disasters, are forcing us to re-examine how we con-
ceive of progress and the dominant models of human development.
In doing so, we must necessarily re-examine the relevance of currents
models of, and approaches to, technical and vocational education in
an increasingly complex, interdependent and unpredictable world.
(UNESCO, 2012, p. 1)

Cedefop (2013a, p. 6) suggests that TVET produces a vast array “of mon-
etary and non-monetary benefits, including higher wages, better job
prospects, better health and satisfaction with life and leisure for individ-
uals; higher productivity and employee satisfaction for organisations;
and higher economic growth and civic engagement for countries”. All
in all, “the wide range of benefits generated demonstrate VET’s dual role,
in contributing to economic excellence and social inclusion” (p. 6).
Despite its possible role, in many OECD countries VET has been run
down in favour of general education and the need to prepare students
for university (OECD, 2010a). Furthermore, VET has been commonly
considered as low status by both students and the general public. Voca-
tional education has “been associated historically with those classes of
 Why Entrepreneurship? 13

society who have to work for a living and who do not partake of the
kind of education fit for the gentry” (Winch, 2013, p. 93). As a matter
of fact, Winch continues, many state schools have “traditionally had an
academic ethos. Transition to employment is not a major preoccupa-
tion of their staff, nor indeed is it considered to be a major part of their
mission” (p. 107).
However, this could be changing, according to the OECD:

[I]ncreasingly, countries are recognising that good initial vocational

education and training has a major contribution to make to eco-
nomic competitiveness. [ . . . ] OECD countries need to compete on
the quality of goods and services they provide. That requires a well-
skilled labour force, with a range of mid-level trade, technical and
professional skills alongside those high-level skills associated with
university education. More often than not, those skills are delivered
through vocational programmes.
(OECD, 2010a, p. 9)

It has been argued that countries such as Germany have done well
in tackling youth unemployment as a result of the efficient school to
work transitions they provide (Quintini, 2012; Quintini & Manfredi,
2009), and it is widely acknowledged that this is due to their VET and
apprenticeship programmes. Iannelli and Raffe (2007) argue that there
are two ideal types of transition systems based on the strength of the
connections between VET and employment, and served respectively
by an “employment logic” and an “education logic”. In systems with
strong connections, the employment logic prevails: vocational educa-
tion has strong ties with the labour market and loose ones with the
educational system. On the other hand, in countries where an educa-
tion logic is dominant, vocational education has loose connections with
industry, is less differentiated from secondary education preparing for
university and allows the students to access university. The Netherlands
and the German-speaking countries are examples of systems adopting
an employment logic, whereas Scotland, and it is claimed also Italy
and Australia, could be examples of countries that use an education
logic. Iannelli and Raffe investigate which of the two types of transition
systems has the best “vocational effect”, which determines the most
successful transition to employment. They conclude that in countries
characterized by an employment logic the vocational effect is strong.
However, TVET shouldn’t be considered essential just because it
eases school to work transitions. In this regard, Tikly (2013) suggests a
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
a few liberal-minded men, nearly all the members from the cotton-
growing states opposed the application strongly.
[178] Ibid., pp. 55-57.

Whitney combined in a singular degree high inventive capacity

with clear judgment and steady determination. By 1798 he saw that
his hopes for any large return from the cotton gin were uncertain. He
turned to the manufacture of firearms and by steady, sure steps built
up another business and died a well-to-do man. In this second
enterprise he developed the interchangeable system of manufacture
and thereby influenced modern society almost as greatly as he had
in the invention of the cotton gin, although this is little realized by the
general public.
In the chapter on “The Rise of Interchangeable Manufacture” we
traced Whitney’s work as a gun manufacturer from 1798, when he
first applied for his contract for ten thousand muskets. His
undertaking of this contract required courage and self-confidence.
Although he was not a trained gun maker, he proposed “from the
start” to manufacture guns by a new method, which was ridiculed by
those familiar with the manufacture of firearms at that time. He had
to build a plant, design and equip it with new and untried types of
tools; and to educate workmen to his methods. Furthermore, he did
this work, involving $134,000, under bond for satisfactory
performance. The high estimation in which Whitney was held by
those who knew him is evidenced by the fact that, although he was
already embarrassed and embarking on an entirely new kind of
enterprise, ten of the foremost men of New Haven signed his bond
for the faithful performance of his contract.
A contemporary, intimately acquainted with his work, has outlined
his method of manufacture in words which describe the
interchangeable system, as it exists today, so accurately that we give
it in full:
The several parts of the muskets were, under this system, carried along through
the various processes of manufacture, in lots of some hundreds or thousands of
each. In their various stages of progress, they were made to undergo successive
operations by machinery, which not only vastly abridged the labor, but at the same
time so fixed and determined their form and dimensions, as to make comparatively
little skill necessary in the manual operations. Such were the construction and
arrangement of this machinery, that it could be worked by persons of little or no
experience, and yet it performed the work with so much precision, that when, in
the later stages of the process, the several parts of the musket came to be put
together, they were as readily adapted to each other, as if each had been made for
its respective fellow.... It will be readily seen that under such an arrangement any
person of ordinary capacity would soon acquire sufficient dexterity to perform a
branch of the work. Indeed, so easy did Mr. Whitney find it to instruct new and
inexperienced workmen, that he uniformly preferred to do so, rather than to
attempt to combat the prejudices of those who had learned the business under a
different system.[179]
[179] Ibid., pp. 53-54.

It took him a much longer time to fulfill the contract than he had
anticipated; two years elapsed before his plant was ready. Only 500
guns were delivered the first year instead of 4000, and the entire
contract required eight years instead of two from the time when he
began actual manufacture. In spite of this delay he kept the
confidence of the government officials, who were very liberal in their
treatment of him; so much had been advanced to him to help him
develop his machinery that when the contract was completed only
$2450 out of the total of $134,000 remained to be paid. The work
was highly satisfactory, and in 1812 he was awarded another
contract for 15,000 muskets from the United States Government and
one for a similar number from the State of New York. What is known
of his methods and machinery is given in the chapter referred to,
which shows also how they spread to other armories throughout the
country.
The business which Mr. Whitney started was carried on for ninety
years. After his death in 1825 the armory was managed for ten years
by Eli Whitney Blake, later inventor of the Blake stone crusher, and
Philos Blake, his nephews. From 1835 to 1842 it was managed by
ex-Governor Edwards, a trustee of Mr. Whitney’s estate. His son, Eli
Whitney, Jr., then became of age and assumed the management,
and that same year obtained a contract for making the “Harper’s
Ferry” rifle,—the first percussion lock rifle, all guns before that date
having had flint locks.
Eli Whitney, Jr., continued to develop the art of gun making. He
introduced improvements in barrel drilling and was the first to use
steel for gun barrels. In 1847, during the Mexican War, Jefferson
Davis, then a colonel in a Mississippi regiment, wrote to the
Ordnance Department at Washington, that it was his opinion that the
steel-barreled muskets from the Whitney armory were “the best rifles
which had ever been issued to any regiment in the world.” The
Whitney Arms Company supplied the Government with more than
30,000 rifles of this model. The company continued in existence until
1888, when the plant was sold to the Winchester Repeating Arms
Company. It was operated by them for a number of years in the
manufacture of 22-calibre rifles. This work was subsequently
removed to their main works and the plant was sold to the Acme
Wire Company, and later to the Sentinel Gas Appliance Company, its
present owner. Some of the original buildings are still standing. It
may be of interest to note that at the time the works were first built, a
row of substantial stone houses was built by Whitney for his
workmen, which are said to have been the first workmen’s houses
erected by an employer in the United States.
In person Mr. Whitney was tall and dignified. He had a cultivated
mind and a manner at once refined, frank and agreeable. He was
familiar with the best society of his day and was a friend of every
president of the United States from George Washington to John
Quincy Adams. He had a commanding influence among all who
knew him. Seldom has a great inventor been more sane, for his
powers of invention were under perfect control and never ran wild.
Unlike those who devise many things but complete few, he left
nothing half executed. Robert Fulton said that Arkwright, Watt and
Whitney were the three of his contemporaries who had done the
most for mankind.[180] Lord Macaulay is quoted as saying, “What
Peter the Great did to make Russia dominant, Eli Whitney’s
invention of the cotton gin has more than equaled in its relation to
the progress and power of the United States.”[181] He contributed
immeasureably to the agriculture and the manufacturing methods of
the whole world and few mechanics have had a greater influence.
[180] Blake: “History of Hamden, Conn.,” p. 303.
[181] Devans: “Our First Century,” p. 153.
 Simeon North was born at Berlin, Conn., the same year as
Whitney, and like him, started life as a farmer. In 1795 he began
making scythes in an old mill adjoining his farm. Just when he began
making pistols is not clear. It is said that he made some for private
sale as early as the time of the Revolution, and it is probable that he
had begun their manufacture in a small way prior to receiving his first
government contract. He may have learned the rudiments of the
trade from Elias Beckley, who had a gun shop about a mile from
North’s birthplace.[182]
[182] The fullest account of Simeon North is given in the “Memoir of
Simeon North,” by S. N. D. North and R. H. North. Concord, N. H., 1913.

In March of 1799, about a year after Whitney received his first

contract for muskets, North received his first contract for horse-
pistols, 500, which were to be delivered in one year. This was
followed by others for 1500 in 1800; 2000 in 1802; 2000 in 1808;
1000 in 1810, and others not known. By 1813 he had made at least
10,000 and was employing forty or fifty men. In none of these
contracts was there any mention made of interchangeability, but
some time during these years North began to use interchangeable
methods. The correspondence quoted in the previous chapter and
the quotations already given show that Whitney was working on the
same basis from the start. It is a great pity that Colonel North’s
papers were destroyed after his death, as they might have thrown
some light on the question as to how and when he began to use
interchangeable methods. It is impossible now to say how much
Whitney and North influenced each other if they did at all. In 1812
the Secretary of War visited North’s shop at Berlin, Conn., and urged
him to increase his plant. On receiving the contract of 1813, North
purchased land in Middletown, Conn., and built a dam and a three-
story brick armory, 86 x 36 feet, on the best lines known at that time,
involving in all an expenditure of $100,000. The old factory was run
in conjunction with the new one until 1843, when it was closed.
North began making barrels of steel in 1848, only a year or two
after Eli Whitney, Jr., and contributed many improvements in the
design of the pistols and guns which he built. The Remington Arms
Company, the Savage Fire Arms Company, the Maynard Rifle
Company and the Massachusetts Arms Company, all trace back in
some way to him, and, like Whitney, he deeply influenced the
practice of the United States Government in its armories at
Springfield and Harper’s Ferry.
Colonel North’s first contract with the Government was made in
1799; his last was finished in 1853, a year after his death, covering
in all about 50,000 pistols and 33,000 rifles. He worked under
sixteen administrations, representing all parties, and in all the fifty-
three years he never received a reproof or a criticism of his work.
He had an old-fashioned sense of honor. In 1826 he was called on
to pay a note for $68,000 which he had indorsed. Although advised
that he could not be held legally, he said that his name was there
and he would stand by it. He placed a mortgage on his property, and
it was twenty-two years before he had made good the loss, which,
principal and interest, amounted to over $100,000. But for this
endorsement he would have died, for that time, a wealthy man.
Colonel North was a country-bred man, strong, quiet and almost
painfully modest. He lacked Whitney’s education and influence, but
like him he represented the best which American mechanical and
business life has produced.
 CHAPTER XIII
THE COLT ARMORY
The city of Hartford has been more closely identified with the later
development of interchangeable manufacture than almost any other
city. The gun makers have been so vital an element in its industrial
life that, before leaving them, we will trace their influence.
The grist and saw mills, always the pioneers, had made their
appearance in the seventeenth century. With recurring attempts at
silk manufacture, most of the meager industrial life was directed
toward some branch of textiles up to and even after 1800.
In 1747 Col. Joseph Pitkin started a prosperous forge for making
bar iron and a mill for iron slitting. It was killed by the Act of
Parliament of 1750, already referred to, but the Pitkin family
balanced the account by using the buildings during the Revolution to
make powder for the Continental army. Later the buildings were put
to their original use. The Pitkins were industrial leaders for many
years in textiles, and in the manufacture of silverware, clocks,
watches, and heating apparatus. Henry and James F. Pitkin made
the old “American lever” watches in 1834, and many of the early
workmen who went to Waltham were trained by them.
 Figure 31. Samuel Colt

The assessors’ returns for 1846 to the Secretary of State gave for
Hartford only three “machine factories” with a total capital of
$25,000, an annual output of $35,000, and forty-five men employed.
There were two boiler shops, a screw factory, a plow factory, a pin
factory, two brass and four iron foundries, and one poor gun maker
who did a business of $625 a year. Taken together, these enterprises
averaged only about $15,000 in capital, $20,000 in annual output
and fifteen employees each. This is hardly more than would be
expected in any town of its size, and certainly does not mark the city
as a manufacturing center. Book publishing employed over twice,
and clothing shops more than four times, as many men as all the
machine shops together.
In 1821 Alpheus and Truman Hanks purchased a small foundry
and began the business which later became Woodruff & Beach. This
firm had a long and successful career in building heavy machinery,
engines and boilers, and was among the earliest makers of iron
plows. In 1871 it became H. B. Beach & Son, boiler makers, and the
firm is still running, H. L. Beach being now (1914) the only survivor of
the old works.
In 1834 Levi Lincoln started the Phœnix Iron Works. Under various
names (George S. Lincoln & Company, Charles L. Lincoln &
Company, The Lincoln Company, The Taylor & Fenn Company) the
business has been maintained by his descendants to this day. Levi
Lincoln invented a number of machines, among them the first
successful hook-and-eye machine for Henry North of New Britain,
which became very valuable and helped to lay the foundation of the
prosperity of that town. George S. Lincoln & Company built machine
tools, architectural iron work and vaults. Their name is permanently
associated with the “Lincoln” miller, which was first built in 1855 in
their shop for the new Colt Armory, from the design of F. A. Pratt. It
was an adaptation and improvement of a Robbins & Lawrence miller
which had been brought to Hartford a year or two before. Few
machines have changed so little or have been used so widely. It has
been said that more than 150,000 of them have been built in this
country and abroad. Even in Europe, the type is definitely known by
this name.
The building of the Colt Armory in 1853 to 1854 marks a definite
era in Hartford’s history and the beginning of manufacturing there on
a large scale. Samuel Colt had an adventurous life, and died in the
midst of his success while less than fifty years old. Born in Hartford
in 1814, he had a rather stormy career as a schoolboy and shipped
before the mast to Calcutta before he was sixteen. After his return
from this voyage, he worked for some months in his father’s dye
works at Ware, Mass., where he got a smattering of chemistry. At
eighteen he started out again, this time as a lecturer under the name
of “Dr. Coult,” giving demonstrations of nitrous-oxide, or laughing
gas, which was little known to the public at that time. Dr. Coult’s
“lectures” were frankly popular, with a view more to laughter than the
imparting of knowledge, but he was clever and a good advertiser. It
is said that he gave laughing gas to more men, women and children
than any other lecturer since chemistry was first known. For three
years he drifted over the country from Quebec to New Orleans,
getting into all kinds of experiences, from administering gas for
cholera when impressed into service on account of his assumed title,
to fleeing the stage from big blacksmiths who took laughing gas too
seriously and actively.
He made the first crude model of his revolver on his voyage to
Calcutta and used the means derived from his “lectures” for
developing the invention. In 1835 he went to England and took out
his first patent there and on his return in 1836 he took out his first
American patent. These covered a firearm with a rotating cylinder
containing several chambers, to be discharged through a single
barrel. The same year, 1836, he organized the Patent Fire Arms
Company at Paterson, N. J., and tried to get the revolver adopted by
the United States Government. In 1837 an army board reported “that
from its complicated character, its liability to accident, and other
reasons, this arm was entirely unsuited to the general purposes of
the service.”
Colt’s first market was secured on the Texas frontier. His earliest
revolvers are known as the Walker and Texas models, and the hold
which he acquired with frontiersmen at that time has never been lost.
The Seminole War in Florida gave Colt an opportunity to
demonstrate the value of the revolver. In 1840 two government
boards gave it a qualified approbation and two small orders followed,
one for one hundred and the other for sixty weapons. The pistols,
however, were expensive, the sales small, and in 1842 the Paterson
company failed and ceased business.
In the next few years the tide turned. The superiority of the
revolvers outstanding was creating a great demand. With the
breaking out of the Mexican War in 1846 came two orders for 1000
pistols each, and from that time onward Colt’s career was one of
rapid and brilliant success.
As his Paterson plant had closed, Colt had the first of the large
government orders made at the Whitney Armory in New Haven,
where he followed minutely every detail of their manufacture. The
following year, 1848, Colt moved to Hartford and for a few years
rented a small building near the center of the city. With rapidly
increasing business, larger quarters soon became necessary.
In 1853 he began his new armory, shown in Fig. 32. South of the
city on the river front, lay an extensive flat, overflowed at high water
and consequently nearly valueless. He purchased a large tract of
this, built a protective dike 30 feet high and 1³⁄₄ miles long, and
drained it. His armory built on this site marks an epoch not only in
the history of Hartford, but in American manufacturing.
After the failure of his first venture at Paterson, Colt had seen the
advantage of interchangeable manufacture at the Whitney shop, and
determined to carry it even further in his new plant. So thoroughly
was this done that the methods crystallized there, and many of the
tools installed have undergone little change to this day. Machine
work almost wholly superseded hand work. Modern machines were
developed, and interchangeability and standards of accuracy given
an entirely new meaning.
The building was in the form of an “H,” 500 feet long and 3¹⁄₂
stories high. It contained over 1400 machines, the greater part of
which were designed and built on the premises. The tools and
fixtures cost about as much as the machines themselves, a
proportion unheard of before. In 1861 the plant was doubled. Three
years later the first building was burned to the ground, but was
immediately rebuilt. This plant was the largest private armory in the
world and far-and-away the best then existing for economical and
accurate production of a high-grade output. Many rivals have sprung
up in the past sixty years, but the Colt Armory is still one of the
leading gun factories of the world.
Colonel Colt was a remarkable man, masterful, daring and brilliant.
He started the larger industrial development of his city, and affected
manufacturing methods more than any other man of his generation.

Figure 32. The Colt Armory

From an Old Wood-Cut

One of the elements of his success was his ability to gather and
hold about him men of the highest order. Among these was Elisha K.
Root, one of the ablest mechanics New England has ever produced.
Root was a Massachusetts farmer’s boy, a few years older than Colt.
He served an apprenticeship, worked at Ware and at Chicopee Falls,
and came to the Collins Company, axe makers, at Collinsville,
Conn., in 1832. He began work there as a lathe hand in the repair
shop, but very soon became foreman and virtual superintendent. His
inventions and methods converted a primitive shop into a modern
factory and gave the Collins Company control, for a long time, of the
American market, and opened up a large export trade. In 1845 he
was made superintendent, and that same year was offered three
important positions elsewhere, one of them that of master armorer at
Springfield.
In 1849 Colt offered him the position of superintendent at a large
salary. It was characteristic of Colt that, although he was just starting
and still in small rented quarters, he outbid three others to get the
best superintendent in New England. Root moved to Hartford,
designed and built the new armory and installed its machinery. Many
of the machines devised by him at that time are still running, holding
their own in accuracy and economy of production with those of
today. Almost every process used in the plant felt his influence. He
invented the best form of drop hammer then in use, machines for
boring, rifling, making cartridges, stock turning, splining, etc., and
worked out the whole system of jigs, fixtures, tools and gauges. The
credit for the revolver belongs to Colt; for the way they were made,
mainly to Root. Fig. 33, a chucking lathe, and Fig. 34, a splining
machine, are two of Mr. Root’s machines which are still at work.
When Colonel Colt died, Mr. Root became president of the company
and continued until his death in 1865, receiving, it is said, the highest
salary paid in the state of Connecticut. He was a mechanic and
inventor of high order, a wise executive, and the success of the two
companies he served was in a large measure due to him. He was
quiet, thoughtful and modest. His influence went into flesh and blood
as well as iron and steel, for under him have worked F. A. Pratt and
Amos Whitney, Charles E. Billings and C. M. Spencer, George A.
Fairfield, of the Hartford Machine Screw Company, William Mason
and a host of others whom we cannot mention here. Like a parent, a
superintendent may be judged, in some measure, by the children he
rears, and few superintendents can show such a family.
Within a few years after the building of the Colt Armory,
manufacturing at Hartford had taken a definite character. From that
day to this it has centered almost wholly on high-grade products,
such as guns, sewing machines, typewriters, bicycles, automobiles
and machine tools. Naturally, during the past generation, the skilled
mechanics of the city have attracted many new and important
industries, only indirectly connected with the armory, which we
cannot consider here.
 In 1848 Christian Sharps invented his breech-loading rifle, and in
1851 a company was formed at Hartford to manufacture it. Richard
S. Lawrence came from Windsor, Vt., as its master armorer, and is
said to have brought with him the first miller used in the city. They did
a large business for some years, but later moved to Bridgeport, and
the plant was sold to the Weed Sewing Machine Company. C. E.
Billings and George A. Fairfield, both “Colt men,” were
superintendents of this plant. When the Columbia bicycles were
introduced, the Weed Sewing Machine Company made them for the
Pope Manufacturing Company of Boston. Later this company bought
the plant, and it became one of the greatest bicycle factories in the
world. Of late years it has been used for the manufacture of
automobiles.
Figure 33. Root’s Chucking Lathe

About 1855
 Figure 34. Root’s Splining Machine

About 1855

Two great industries sprang up in the neighborhood of Hartford in

the early days and had a vigorous life quite independent of it. We
have noted that Levi Lincoln contributed to the establishment of the
hardware industry at New Britain. Although New Britain is but a few
miles from Hartford, its manufactures have moved in a distinctly
different direction. In fact, by 1820 it had taken its character as a
hardware manufacturing center. North & Shipman had begun making
sleigh-bells, hooks and plated goods, and Lee was making buttons
and saddlery hardware. In 1839 Henry E. Russell and Cornelius B.
Erwin became active partners in Stanley, Russell & Company, the
beginning of the Russell & Erwin Manufacturing Company. The
Stanley Works and Landers, Frary & Clark had their beginnings in
1842; P. & F. Corbin in 1848, and the Stanley Rule & Level Company
in 1854. About the same time, Elnathan Peck, after a partnership
with George Dewey and Henry Walter, sold out to J. B. Sargent, who
later moved to New Haven. Mr. Peck also moved to New Haven and
started what is now Peck Brothers. It is a remarkable case of the
localization of a great industry. These companies, all large and
important, started within fifteen years in one small village of only a
few thousand inhabitants.
The other industry which started near Hartford but has developed
separately is the manufacture of clocks. Early in the nineteenth
century Eli Terry, first at Windsor, just north of Hartford, and later at
what is now Thomaston, Conn., began using machinery in making
wooden clocks, and by 1840 he had reduced the price for a
movement from $50 to $5. About 1840 Chauncey Jerome, an
apprentice of Terry’s, introduced the one-day brass clock which
could be made for less than fifty cents. In 1842 he shipped his first
consignment to England. They were promptly confiscated at their
invoice prices by the customs authorities for under-valuation. This
was perfectly agreeable to Jerome, as it furnished him with a spot-
cash buyer at full price, with no selling expenses. He therefore sent
another and larger shipment, which shared the same fate. When a
third still larger one arrived, the authorities withdrew from the clock
business and let it in. The exports soon spread everywhere, and
today Connecticut manufactures three-fifths of the clocks produced
in the United States.
Nearly all the great clock companies of Connecticut, like the New
Haven, Seth Thomas and Waterbury companies, trace back directly
or indirectly to Jerome and Terry.
 CHAPTER XIV
THE COLT WORKMEN—PRATT & WHITNEY
At least two of the superintendents of the Colt Armory should be
mentioned—Prof. Charles B. Richards and William Mason.
Mr. Richards was not primarily a tool builder, but his contributions
to mechanical engineering are too great to pass without notice.
About 1860 he helped Charles T. Porter develop the design of the
first high-speed steam engine, and in order to study the action of this
engine he invented the Richards steam engine indicator. Indicators,
more or less crude, had been in use from the time of Watt, but the
Richards indicator was the first one accurate enough and delicate
enough to meet the demands of modern engine practice; and its
influence has been far-reaching. After a few years in New York as a
consulting engineer, he was for many years in the Colt Armory as
engineering superintendent under Mr. Root, and later was
superintendent of the Southwark Foundry & Machine Company in
Philadelphia. In 1884 he became Professor of Mechanical
Engineering at the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University,
where he remained for twenty-five years as the head of the
mechanical engineering department.
William Mason was another of those who helped make the Colt
Armory what it was. He was a modest, kindly man, little known
outside of his immediate associates, but of singular fertility in
invention and almost unerring mechanical judgment. He learned his
trade with the Remington Arms Company at Ilion, N. Y., and after a
long association with them he was for sixteen years superintendent
of the Colt Armory. In 1885 he became master mechanic of the
Winchester Repeating Arms Company of New Haven, and held that
position until his death in 1913. He had granted to him more than
125 patents, most of them in connection with arms and ammunition
and tools for their manufacture, but they included many appliances
for looms and weaving, steam pumps, and bridge work, and he
assisted with the development of the Knowles steam pump and
Knowles looms.
Asa Cook, a brother-in-law of F. A. Pratt, was for years a foreman
and contractor at Colt’s. He was afterwards a designer and
manufacturer of machinery for making wood screws, bolt machinery
and many other types of tools. George A. Fairfield, another Colt
foreman, became superintendent of the Weed Sewing Machine
factory and later president of the Hartford Machine Screw Company;
another workman, A. F. Cushman, of the Cushman Chuck Company,
for many years manufactured lathe chucks. In fact, there is hardly a
shop in Hartford which dates from the seventies and eighties which
does not trace back in some way to the Colt Armory. Its influence is
by no means confined to Hartford, for such men as Bullard and
Gleason carried its standards and methods to other cities.
Four of the Colt workmen formed two partnerships of wide
influence: Charles E. Billings and Christopher M. Spencer, who
organized the Billings & Spencer Company, and Francis A. Pratt and
Amos Whitney, of the Pratt & Whitney Company.
Charles E. Billings was a Vermonter, who served his
apprenticeship in the old Robbins & Lawrence shop at Windsor, Vt.
When twenty-one, he came to Colt’s, in 1856, as a die sinker and
tool maker and became their expert on the drop forging process. In
1862 he went to E. Remington & Sons, where he built up their
forging plant, increasing its efficiency many times, saving $50,000, it
is said, by one improvement in frame forging alone. At the end of the
war he returned to Hartford as the superintendent of the Weed
Sewing Machine Company, which had taken over the old Sharps
Rifle Works, built by Robbins & Lawrence. For a short time in 1868
Mr. Billings was at Amherst, Mass., associated with Spencer in the
Roper Repeating Arms Company. The venture was not a success,
and the next year, 1869, they came back to Hartford and formed the
Billings & Spencer Company. This company has probably done more
than any other for the art of drop forging, not only in developing the
modern board drop hammer itself, but in extending the accuracy and
application of the process. Mr. Billings was president of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers in 1895.
Christopher M. Spencer was born at Manchester, Conn. He served
his apprenticeship in the machine shops of the silk mills there from
1847 to 1849, and remained for several years as a journeyman
machinist with Cheney Brothers. In 1853 he went to Rochester, N.
Y., to learn something of the other kinds of machinery, working in a
tool building shop and a locomotive shop. After some years at the
Colt Armory he went back to Cheney Brothers and soon obtained his
first patent for an automatic silk-winding machine. This was adopted
by the Willimantic Linen Company, with some modifications made by
Hezekiah Conant, and was the machine which Pratt & Whitney
began manufacturing in their first rented room in Hartford.
Mr. Spencer has had a passion for firearms from boyhood. In 1860
he obtained a patent for the Spencer repeating rifle. The Civil War
created a tremendous demand for it, and the Government ordered
first 1000, then 10,000, and before the war was over it had
purchased about 200,000. In 1862, while the first contracts were
pending, Spencer saw President Lincoln at Washington. He and
Lincoln went down on the White House grounds with the new rifle,
set up a board and shot at it. Lincoln enjoyed it like a schoolboy, and
shot well, too. He tore his coat pocket in the process, but told
Spencer not to worry over it, as he “never had anything of value in it
to lose.”
At the close of the war Spencer went to Amherst and was there
first associated with C. E. Billings in the Roper Company, as we
noted. A year later he joined in starting the Billings & Spencer
Company and coöperated with him in the development of the drop
hammer.
A successful machine which Spencer invented for turning sewing
machine spools suggested to Spencer the possibility of making
metal screws automatically. The result was his invention of the
automatic turret lathe. The importance of the blank cam cylinder, with
its flat strips adjustable for various jobs, was wholly over-looked by
his patent attorney, with the result that Spencer obtained no patent
right on the most valuable feature in the whole machine.