Measuring entrepreneurship education across national contexts is a relatively recent academic area. Scholarly study is vital for more multilevel entrepreneurship. Hitherto disciplines of psychology and economics have been dominating - so, to brace the framework at micro and macro level a balanced scholarship, based upon multiple frame ecology is needed. Hence an alternative viewpoint to research entrepreneurship education across national contexts is explored. Selected nations from global education and training scenario are analyzed in one framework. Construal limitations are identified by concentrating on one sample country. Limitations are explored using another framework. A balancing Funnel Model of Entrepreneurship Education Ecology is introduced to accommodate contrary findings of both frames. The model is put forward for further study. The chapter concludes by proposing further research avenues for mutual learning ecology by discussing the findings for comparison with India.
TopIntroduction
In every seed there is a promise of a thousand forests - Anonymous
Historical developments shape and reshape societies & nations as well as the inherent dynamics to achieve economic objectives for survival and progress. The emerging recognition of entrepreneurship as a global force has not only influenced national economic policies and government-to-government negotiations, but also the concerns of global organizations & institutions including the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations (Bosma et al.2008a). In an increasingly overpopulated-integrated-global economy of depleting natural resources and increasing needs, repeated entrepreneurial efforts are needed at many levels for higher yield and optimum utilization of resources- both natural as well as demography related.
Nations and economies can thrive with focus on Entrepreneurship Education (EE) as the best possible way to mitigate the emerging challenges, both foreseen and unforeseen. Studies and academic findings even ask for a proactive approach towards entrepreneurship to avoid senile decay of outdated systems, policies, procedure & institutions (Drucker1985, pp. 230-231). The sudden global spurge in the need and demand of EE has initiated debate and enquiry regarding measurement of the scale and scope of factors and activities in order to analyze how these vary across countries. This context involves multiple aspects related to the field of EE viz. entrepreneurship as a phenomenon as well as a framework of individual response under suitable eventful permutation; educational psychology in a socio-cultural background-within the realms of formal, non-formal, informal & self-help settings; multiple nations, their level of economic development & collective momentum in an integrated globalized age and multiple other factors that operates and affect at micro(individual) as well as macro (nation) level.
To manage the controllable factors that determine national level of such activities is one aspect, and another aspect is to discover uniqueness that keep one country, culture, or society more entrepreneurial in order to imbibe and became an entrepreneurial society. While the former is highly scientific and detail oriented yet the latter is more liberal and pragmatic towards real world orientation. Combination of both forms a symbiotic learning ecology. Globally some subgroups of population had been particularly proficient at running businesses. Esfahanis, Marwaris, and Svabians from Iran, India, and Germany, respectively, are few such examples documented by a number of studies (Iyer & Schoar 2010). The unique knowledge reservoir of such time tested wisdom is embedded in cultural, traditional and social patterns and cannot be overlooked while studying entrepreneurship education across national contexts.
One approach is to classify, segregate, measure and compare each related component of EE and try to control the factors that are supportable. It can be applied to the reports & reviews on the nature of programs, effectiveness of teacher & student programs, or any other measure to evaluate and classify the ‘value’ of EE for a nation (Martinez et al., 2010). For the needs of rigorous real world scenario at the micro (individual) and macro (nation) level, such approach has limitations to substantiate a fair assessment of the exact picture of EE within the nation. Another approach is to gradually absorb and inculcate the subtle nuances through practice and cooption. Hence, understanding of both is equally important for a balanced growth.
TopNature Of The Problem
Until the last decade of the 20th century when the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Consortium (GEM) launched its annual survey in 1990s, little research was conducted for comparable indicators of entrepreneurship. Other indexes and databases like the World Bank Group Entrepreneurship Survey dataset and EIM COMPENDIA database have also been created later in the last decade (Marcotte, 2013). The GEM 2008 & GEM Special report on EE & training are important academic initiative in the novel direction of comparative analysis in the prevailing state of affairs related to EE within nations. The measurement of training structures prevailing in 38 countries were studied on the basis of response of adult population engaged in the field of entrepreneurship and the availability of formal, informal training structures within the schools and outside schools is reflected.