Literature Review

Definition of entrepreneurship

Mokaya et al. (2012) note that the literature has been inconsistent in the definition of
entrepreneurship. The many definitions of entrepreneurship are a testimony to its
diverse nature. The definitions have emphasised a broad range of activities including
the creation of organisations, the carrying out of new combinations, the exploration of
opportunities, the bearing of uncertainty and the bringing together of factors of
production. Mokaya et al. (2012) define entrepreneurship as “the individual motivation
and willingness to take risk, create and sustain a growth-oriented and profit making
enterprise”. Gedeon (2010) agrees that the term entrepreneurship (or who is an
entrepreneur) lacks a single unified and accepted definition. The literature is replete with
criteria ranging from creativity and innovation to personal traits such as appearance and
style (Fernald et al. 2005). According to Gedeon (2010), Cantillon, Turgot, Say and
Schumpeter laid the foundations for the meaning of entrepreneurship. Cantillon defines
the entrepreneur as someone who assumes the risk and may legitimately appropriate
any profits. Turgot and Say point out that the entrepreneur obtains and organizes
production factors to create value. Schumpeter (1934) relates entrepreneurship to
innovation. The innovative activity of entrepreneurs feeds a creative ‘‘destruction
process’’ by causing constant disturbances to an economic system in equilibrium,
creating opportunities for economic rent. In adjusting to equilibrium, other innovations
are spun-off and more entrepreneurs enter the economic system. McCleland (1961)
asserts that entrepreneurial activity involves risk-taking, energetic activity, individual
responsibility, money as a measure of results, anticipation of future possibilities, and
organizational skills. Drucker (1985) observes that the entrepreneur always searches for
change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity. Innovation is the tool of
entrepreneurship.

The recent emphasis on entrepreneurship in the aftermath of the economic crisis has
produced conflicting views of entrepreneurship. The new, broader concepts of
entrepreneurship are constructed upon the critiques of the old, narrower ones. The old
definitions (Baumol, 1993; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Alvarez, 2003) are largely
inherited from Schumpeter’s (1934) conceptualization of entrepreneurship, and are
therefore limited to the business field. As Schumpeter depicts, an entrepreneur is a risk-
taking, innovative agent of economic change. In contrast, the new concepts (Mitchell,
2011; Abu-Saifan, 2012; Halberstadt & Kraus, 2016) suggest that the business
perspective of entrepreneurship is limited when in reality entrepreneurial spirit and ideas
are fundamental to all human activities. According to these concepts, entrepreneurship
operates in a society as a whole, spanning across multiple sectors, domains and
spaces.
 The emergence of the new concepts, however, has not put an end to the old,
narrower ones. Rather, the old concepts have remained to be influential in upholding an
instrumental perspective. From this perspective, entrepreneurship is synonymous with
job creation and profit making, and is thus central to the growth of a state’s economy.
Some of them are even reconceptualized from the broader perspective of
entrepreneurship but still share the same theoretical roots with the old, narrower
concepts due to a stubborn commitment to economic ends. For instance, O’Connor
(2013) adopts a multi-definitional perspective from which entrepreneurship is
reconceptualized as an almost all-encompassing politico-socio-economic phenomenon.
This new concept, in his terms, “directs attention toward different economic outcomes
and challenges the dominant association of entrepreneurship with business start-up”
(O’Connor, 2013, p. 15). Nevertheless, its explicit association with the instrumental
perspective is apparent in its attempt of articulating specific economic outcomes that
entrepreneurial endeavors get involved in. This appears to be simply a continuation of
the instrumental perspective because entrepreneurship is reconstructed to incorporate
more social and political contexts but remains simply for the sake of economic benefits.
This conflict is relevant to this study because it may cause or contribute to the possibility
that popular notions of entrepreneurship and indeed the views of faculty and students
may consider entrepreneurship in a narrower sense than the university does.

The meaning of entrepreneurship education

Garba (2012) asserts that the term “entrepreneurship education” has been defined in
several ways in entrepreneurship literature. Shepherd and Douglas (1997) propose that
“The essence of entrepreneurship education is the ability to envision and chart a course
for a new business venture by combining information from the functional disciplines and
from the external environment in the context of the extraordinary uncertainty and
ambiguity which faces a new business venture. It manifests itself in creative strategies,
innovative tactics, uncanny perception of trends and market mood changes, courageous
leadership when the way forward is not obvious and so on. What we teach in our
entrepreneurship classes should serve to instil and enhance these abilities”.

Souitaris et al. (2007) find that entrepreneurship programs significantly raised

students’ subjective norms and intentions toward entrepreneurship by inspiring them to
choose entrepreneurial careers. Basu and Virick (2008) find that prior exposure to
entrepreneurship education has a positive effect on students’ attitudes toward a career
in entrepreneurship and on perceived behavioural control or entrepreneurial self-
efficacy. Raposo and Depaco (2011) point out that entrepreneurial attitudes are not only
required in the course of a classic entrepreneurial career, but they are also in high
demand independent employment relationships. According to Ismail et al. (2009),
entrepreneurial education at tertiary level has also become an essential component of
many curriculums in higher learning institutions. Since future entrepreneurs can be
found amongst those who are currently undergoing their educational process at the
universities, entrepreneurship education has been used as one of the most effective
ways to promote the transition of graduates into the world of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship education helps in imparting entrepreneurial skills among individuals
(Mwasalwiba, 2010). Thus entrepreneurship education is highly important to
entrepreneurial intention, opportunity recognition and new venture creation. Ediagbonya
(2013) asserts that entrepreneurship education is the kind of education given to people
with a view to developing entrepreneurship qualities properly followed up with support
services for smooth take off and successful running of business. Entrepreneurship
education seeks to provide student (especially those in tertiary schools) with the
knowledge, skills and motivation to encourage entrepreneurial studies in a variety of
setting. Schools for entrepreneurship are an important link between theoretical
knowledge and practical involvement in the market. The Consortium of
Entrepreneurship Education (2013) observes that entrepreneurship education seeks to
prepare people, especially youth, to be responsible, enterprising individuals who
become entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial thinkers and who contribute to economic
development and sustainable communities. Entrepreneurship education is not only
about teaching how to run a business, it is also about encouraging creative thinking and
promoting a strong sense of self-worth and accountability. Through entrepreneurship
education, students learn how to create a business, but they also learn a lot more. The
core knowledge created via entrepreneurship education includes: the ability to
recognize opportunities in one’s life; the ability to pursue such opportunities by
generating new ideas and marshalling needed resources; the ability to create and
operate a new venture and the ability to think in a creative and critical manner.

Perception is a process of being aware of one’s environment through the senses.

How one perceives the world consequently determines how one reacts to it. Perception
involves analyzing and interpreting items picked out by the senses in order to assign
meaning to them. How one analyzes and interprets a sensory reception is determined
by many factors which include cultural setting, memories, values, imaginations and past
experiences. As such, different people will perceive the same object differently because
the content and degree of these influences is different. Consequently perception is not
external reality. Perception is the way a particular person thinks about the reality; it is a
subjective reality (Lindsay & Norman, 1977)

Perception plays a critical role in entrepreneurship. If a person has a positive

perception towards entrepreneurship it is likely that the person will engage in an
entrepreneurial act (GEM, 2010).A person’s perception of entrepreneurship will be
shaped by factors endogenous and exogenous. Endogenous factors are those that are
within one’s control and relate to issues such as character. The exogenous factors are
beyond a person’s control and relate to environmental issues such as taxation rates,
inflation and recession. While these factors may affect all, those with a positive
perception of entrepreneurship will perceive themselves as having what it takes to
overcome hurdles (Moy &Wright, 2003)

An individual’s perception of self and environment determine the goals the individual
sets for him/herself and the expected outcome of actions taken. The perception of
opportunity, alongside motivation and access to means to pursue the opportunity, is
seen as a prerequisite condition to entrepreneurial behaviour. Those who take up
entrepreneurship perceive lucrative opportunities where others do not. Entrepreneurs
are also seen to perceive less risk in situations. Rather than look at disadvantages and
threats they focus on advantages and opportunities. (Palich & Bagby, 1995).

Studies that have focused on how students perceive entrepreneurship whether

amongst pre-university students or among undergraduate students have concluded that
social groups and the school have the greatest influence on whether students perceive
entrepreneurship as a career option. Kelly, Bosma and Amoros (2011) through a survey
of fifty- nine countries point out indicators of attitudes towards entrepreneurship. These
indicators include the extent to which people think there are opportunities for starting
business, their perceived capability of doing so, their fear of failure and the level of risk
one is willing to take. They further note that these attitudes are largely shaped by
societal perceptions such as through media images of entrepreneurship.

Shinnar, Pruelt and Bryan (2010), in their research on non- business students’
attitudes towards entrepreneurship in Northern Carolina universities, found that parents
played a great role in shaping the students attitudes. Henderson and Robertson (1999)
make reference of studies such as Scott and Twomey (1998), Harrison and Hart
(1992)and Dalton and Holloway (1989) which point out key predisposing factors that
guide a student’s ambition towards entrepreneurship. These include parental influence
and family role models, previous work experience and the attitudes the student has of
himself or herself. They noted that entrepreneurial aspirations are likely to come from
homes where their parents owned their own business and that many aspiring
entrepreneurs had received significant responsibility at a young age to the extent of
some engaging in entrepreneurial ventures.

Curran (1996) in Henderson and Robertson (1999) in a research among high school
students in Scotland found that teachers and the media had a major influence on
students’ perception of entrepreneurship. In their findings, both the teachers and the TV
portrayed a negative image of the entrepreneur as one constantly facing money worries.
Also the teachers contributed in the creation of the perception of career -forgone should
one opt for an entrepreneurship career.
 Saee(1996)in his evaluation of entrepreneurship education in Australia observed that,
though there was a move away from traditional subjects and an increase in subjects
that can propagate entrepreneurship such as business studies, the general perception
of entrepreneur in Australia was negative due to the focus on those who had failed. The
school system failed to teach entrepreneurial spirit and the awareness of self
employment as a career option. World Economic Forum (2010) noted that fear of
failure, cultural barriers and role of family and friends had the greatest influence on
students’ perception of entrepreneurship.