reconstruct creative destruction knowledge through creative disruption
Post on 31-Mar-2023
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Reconstruct creative destructionknowledge through creative disruption
Muhammad Nizam Zainuddin, Mohd Fairuz Abd Rahim and Mohd Rozaini Mohd Rejab
Abstract
Purpose – With internet technology, knowledge acquisition surpasses the confinement of the
university’s campus or syllabus. Concurrently, an entrepreneurship programme has recently been
offered to students, positioning universities as an experimental ground for the breeding of
entrepreneurs. Thus, this paper seeks to evaluate the effect of entrepreneurship education syllabi
empowered with current information communication technology (ICT) exposure towards students’
entrepreneurial self-efficacy together with social norms and their entrepreneurial intention; and whether
this latest development lives up to stakeholders’ expectations.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected through a census survey of entrepreneurship
students at four MSC-Status universities that offer entrepreneurship degree programmes. Quantitative
analyses such as regression were performed.
Findings – Specialised entrepreneurship education with ICT exposure significantly affects a student’s
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. However social norms were found to be a poor predictor towards
entrepreneurial intention, explaining the diminished level of influence lecturers had upon their students’
behaviour.
Research limitations/implications – This study focuses on a group of entrepreneurship students who
are exposed to ICTapplications at that stipulated time, and as such, the findings cannot be generalised
as technology evolves rapidly. The findings are also limited to only entrepreneurial intention and
demonstrate the outcome in Malaysia’s higher education industry.
Practical implications – The two direct stakeholders i.e. the university’s management and lecturers,
may need to reconstruct their respective initiatives by introducing ‘‘creative disruption’’ philosophies,
policies and pedagogies to facilitate the ‘‘creative destruction’’ mode of education into realising its full
potential.
Originality/value – This paper provides an insight into challenges that universities face in delivering
distinctive knowledge consisting of theories and practices. Together, they require constructive and
radical yet practical initiatives.
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Education, Learning organizations, Social learning, Planned behaviours,Malaysia
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Higher education institutes’ (HEIs) practices underwent tremendous transformation in recent
decades, globalisation (Deema et al., 2008), technological advancement (Georgina and
Olson, 2008) and a new breed of ‘‘information age mindset’’ students as their prime receivers
(Frand, 2000), were identified as elements behind this process; causing HEIs to rethink their
quality propositions to the public (Houston, 2008). This includes offering in-demand
programmes such as entrepreneurship (Kuratko, 2005) and thinking ahead, managing
disruptive technologies (Bower and Christensen, 1995) to stay in touch with industries.
The nexus between advancement and subsequently integration of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) into HEIs’ landscapes are becoming more viable.
PAGE 34 j ON THE HORIZON j VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012, pp. 34-48, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1074-8121 DOI 10.1108/10748121211202053
Muhammad Nizam
Zainuddin,
Mohd Fairuz Abd Rahim and
Mohd Rozaini Mohd Rejab
are all Lecturers in the
Faculty of Management,
Multimedia University,
Cyberjaya, Malaysia.
Described by Friedman (2005) as power of ten world flatteners; combinations of netscape,
uploading, in-forming and ‘‘the steroids’’; the phenomenon rapidly changing the old norm of
physical classroom learning into new norm of virtual access of new knowledge chambers
with just the click of a mouse. This occurrence promoted many education management
research papers: particularly on how to improve educational equities post ICT-adoption
(Darling-Hammond, 2009) and how to deal with changes from the ‘‘Cartesan’’ view of
learning to the social view of learning resulting from the ICT integration into the classroom
(Brown and Adler, 2008).
Riding on the internet platform, open courseware and content regarded as enablers for
achieving universal right to education (Caswell et al., 2008), has opened up information
gateway to the widest possible audience (Downe, 2007). Meanwhile, through personal
message application found in Social Networking Sites (SNSs) like Facebook, Twitter and
LinkedIn, students may directly communicate with any public personality including
entrepreneurs, sportsmen, and artists. What makes more of a substantial, increasing trend
of university students were found to rely on SNSs for information compared to other
communication mediums (Ellison, 2007).
Nevertheless, Jedeskog and Nissen (2004) found that there were two ongoing trends
associated with the infusion of ICT in the classroom, a changing of students’ focus from
content to form, and a dissolution of boundaries in terms of room, time and activity. They
found that both variables have created a situation where ‘‘to perform’’ something with a
computer seems to be more important than to comprehend the content of a certain subject.
On possible impacts of SNSs, Peluchette and Karl (2008) suggested that SNSs may
positively increase adolescents’ self esteem and the well-being of students through the
positive feedback that they receive online but an adverse effect was possible if the feedback
was negative.
Concurrently, reacting to market demand; specialised entrepreneurship education (SEE)
programmes were observed in the recent decades (Kuratko, 2005) due to the growing
popularity of the entrepreneurship domain itself. SEE programmes were established mostly
at business schools at universities (Kirby, 2004) and the specific objective of SEE is to create
more entrepreneurial individuals who can act as independent entrepreneurs (Hytti and
O’Gorman, 2004).
Despite the proliferation of SEE, Pittaway and Cope (2007) found there was a lack of
consensus on what entrepreneurship or enterprise education actually ‘‘is’’ when
implemented in practice; this includes basic entrepreneurship typology subscribed by
the business schools (Gibb, 1987) that seem unsettled. There are two most subscribed
entrepreneurship definitions provided by Richard Cantillon (1755) and Joseph Schumpeter
(1934). The former defines entrepreneurship as ‘‘an act of undertaking business and
making profits after resale stage,’’ and the latter emphasised on ‘‘the way of creative
destruction that used a creative and innovative approach to exploit commercial
opportunity.’’ The question here, in business schools is, which definition is closer –
Cantillonian or Schumpeterian? Perhaps, discrepancies like this might influence the overall
delivery of SEE, where entrepreneurship educators are still undecided as to whether to
portray an entrepreneur as a ‘‘commercial business person’’ or ‘‘creative market
destructor,’’ because different syllabi, resources and approaches are needed in making
either references and the outcomes are likely be different. Due to this confusion, Hindle
(2007) believed that business schools were the wrong place to teach entrepreneurship
education because of their conventional approaches of teaching entrepreneurship in
normal business management templates.
Together, the combination of ICT and SEE programmes creates a ‘‘new form’’ of education
and led HEIs on experimental ground. This situation is assumed to directly affect the
universities’ stakeholders (i.e. universities’ management, lecturers/educators and students)
imposing a greater challenge ahead; with information that is widely accessible and social
learning that is no longer confined to a university’s environment. Two research questions
(RQs) arise:
VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 35
RQ1. Do entrepreneurship students perceive that the SEE syllabi empowered with
current ICT exposure increase their entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE)?
RQ2. Surrounded by widely available information (SNSs, open courseware & content),
do entrepreneurship students perceive that their educators’ social norms (SN)
have significant influence towards their intention to become self-employed?
Accordingly, this paper aims to empirically evaluate and confirm the current combined
phenomenon of SEE delivery and ICTexposure together with SEE educators’ SN influence in
the university; contribute ideas to reconstruct a new form of ideal SEE’s programme offering
through creative disruption by injecting ’’new norm’’ elements comprising of the three P’s
approach: philosophies, policies and pedagogies that will use ICT as a medium, thus
maintaining university relevancy and increase quality propositions to public.
The university: the ideal incubator for entrepreneurship antecedents
Many theories underlined antecedents of why an individual perceived opportunity and later
acted entrepreneurially (Meyer, 2004; Lee and Venkataraman, 2006; Reynolds et al., 2004;
Krueger et al., 2000; Shapero and Sokol, 1982). Yet scholars are also interested to find a
suitable candidate and place to cultivate these antecedents to develop future
entrepreneurs. Initially, Gibb (1987) discovered that young individuals were the ideal
candidates to be nurtured as future entrepreneurs. Subsequently, the university was chosen
as the best provider of entrepreneurship educational settings due to its fertile ground for
development of antecedents of entrepreneurial behaviour (Davidsson, 1995; Krueger and
Brazeal, 1994; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). The selection was where the highest
entrepreneurship rates were achieved in universities that had invested the most in
entrepreneurship education for their students (Varela and Jimenez, 2001) and younger
individuals were found more likely to start a new firm compared to older ones once they
received the right educational support (Levesque and Minniti, 2006).
According to Savickas (2002), university students are at the ‘‘exploration’’ stage, whereby all
the interaction of personality traits are being explored rigorously and the student may start to
choose a career in the process of ‘‘circumscription stage’’ or reject unacceptable
alternatives (Gottfredson, 2002). This career decision-making period is in line with social
learning perspective (Bandura, 1977), and that choosing a particular career is influenced by
positive and consistent reinforcement from observing significant occupational role models
(e.g. family, close friends, idols, educators) and being exposed to images related to specific
careers (Krumboltz et al., 1976).
Effect of SEE delivery empowered by ICT towards students’ ESE
Previous studies have established direct positive association between SEE and ESE
(Davidsson, 1995, Krueger and Brazeal, 1994) through acquisition of management tools and
exposure to entrepreneurial situations (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). SEE’s were found to be
enhancing variables that formed ESE like the need of achievements, locus of control
(Hansemark, 1998; Ehrlich et al., 2000; Wilson et al., 2007).
In contrast, Dilts and Fowler (1999) argued that only certain teaching methods
(i.e. traineeships and field learning) were more successful than others in preparing
students for an entrepreneurial career. Therefore, if entrepreneurship educators lack
pedagogical knowledge and skills, and even unsettled typology of what to teach, it might
affect the delivery of learning experiences to students. This concern proved to be
substantial. Bennett (2006) found that academicians’ definitions of entrepreneurship were
influenced by their backgrounds and by the number of years they had worked in the
business sector. Therefore, if educators lacked or had no experience in creative destruction,
they were unable to precisely illustrate the process – and worst still – they would provide the
wrong perception of entrepreneurship towards students. The level of ESE transferred to
students would be less substantial.
PAGE 36 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012
With regards to exposure to ICT, Oliver and Burke (2008) found that almost 50 percent of
Engineering and Business students in Australia, Ethiopia and Malaysia owned laptops. With
high rates of ownership, students are assumed to be exposed to ICT hardware, software,
programme applications and have access to the internet.
There are three levels of implications resulting from ICT exposure:
1. An individual level, Passig and Levin’s (2000) found that students do not only study the
subject matter, but also learn how to deal with the synthetically programmed environment
– mimicking the real process of nature with or without the knowledge of consequences of
such action.
2. At duo-level perspective, Solomon et al.(2002) found that ICT allows lecturers to
communicate better with students by sharing resources and ideas effectively through
multiple sources of learning tools comprising of distance education and multi-media
lessons of both ‘‘real’’ and ‘‘virtual’’ courses, made possible by internet connectivity
(Alberti et al., 2004).
3. At group-level, technology improves the ability to learn and support the creation and
maintenance of a learning culture (Rahim et al., 2008; Watkins and Marsick, 1999).
Regardless, Watson et al. (2004) mentioned that the yardsticks of a successful education
programme with ICTexposure are that students understand the potential applications of ICT
(ESE) obtained through classroom experiences and later innovatively utilise them as
business tools. Lee and Bertera (2007), proved that graduate students who use online forum
demonstrate heightened self-efficacy and Kurbanoglu (2003) concludes that self-efficacy is
closely linked to information literacy.
The effects of SEE educators’ SN towards students’ EI
SN can be defined as unwritten rules of conduct (Elster, 1989) that are derived from beliefs
about the normative expectations of others and motivation to comply with these expectations
(Scholten et al., 2004).
March (1988) theorised that SN provides the guideline for desirable behaviour within a
culture. Assuming that the university acts as an incubator for EI perception, the norm set by
the university is that an entrepreneurship degree student seeks self-employment to exploit
perceived opportunity rather than employment in a large organisation, and then it is obvious
that starting a firm will be considered an appropriate action. This argument is supported by
Bryant and Bryant (1998) where social norms in a community (university) changes what is
more likely to be seen as an opportunity.
Empirical results of SN variables towards EI were generally mixed. SN was proven to be an
important variable towards EI (Kolvereid, 1996, Krueger, 1993, Grundsten, 2004) because
students’ lack of knowledge and experience and are often in the midst of investigating their
career choice preferences. Therefore, the opinions of parents, partners, friends, and
important others might be influential in this process (Gelderen et al., 2006).
In contrast, scholars also found SN to be unreliable predictor to EI. According to
Scholten et al. (2004), SN played a marginal role where only individuals who
experienced a positive view on entrepreneurship amongst their immediate contacts is
associated with the intention of entrepreneurship. Meanwhile, Krueger et al.(2000), held
that SN are less predictive for individuals who have a high internal locus of control. Basu
and Virick (2008) discovered there were no significant differences between the SN of
those who had prior exposure to entrepreneurship education and prior experience in
entrepreneurship, Fayolle et al. (2005) suggested that SN were not significantly affected
by entrepreneurship education. Finally, Linan et al. (2005) totally dismissed SN as
insignificant predictor to EI.
VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 37
Research methodology
(i) Method of sampling
A total 186 final and penultimate year entrepreneurship degree students from four (4) major
public and private universities with Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) statuses in Malaysia
namely: Universiti Utara Malaysia (University I), Universiti Malaysia Sabah (University II),
Universiti Tenaga Nasional (University III) and Multimedia University (University IV), were
sampled via a census survey. MSC-status universities were chosen due to their affiliation
with multimedia technologies used to produce or enhance their teaching, research, and
overall process (MSC, 2010). Final and penultimate year students were chosen due to their
juncture in facing imminent career-making decisions(Krueger and Kickul, 2006; Krueger
et al., 2000).
(ii) Research operationalisation
The research questionnaire was constructed based on the modification of validated
previous studies. Both paper and digital versions were created. The questionnaire was
personally administered at the respective universities and those unreachable respondents
(due to their practicum semester) were contacted and received the same questionnaire via
their personal e-mail.
To measure the factors that influence the entrepreneurial intention, the paper employed the
variables used in previous studies (Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2006; Kolvereid, 1996). Using
existing scales is advantageous because these measures have been validated and proven
to have good psychometric properties. It allows cumulative knowledge development and
enables findings to be explained within the context of extant literature and empiricism
(Mavondo et al., 2005). All variables were measured using a four-point Likert scale.
There are four variables in this research consisting of two dependent variables (EI and ESE)
and two independent variables (SEEICT and SN). These variables are paired in two groups
according to arrangement of hypotheses testing.
1. Group I (H1):
B ESE – The dependent variable ESE was measured using 16 items that indicate the
respondent’s perception of his or her ability to behave entrepreneurially. The items
were developed based on the modification of past validated studies (Kolvereid, 1996;
Ajzen, 1991; Linan and Chen, 2006; Noble et al., 1999; Tkachev and Kolvereid, 1999;
Tretten, 2005).
B SEEICT – The independent variable SEEICT was measured using 12 items that
indicate the perception of SEE delivery and ICT exposure the respondent received in
the university. The items were developed based on the modification of past validated
studies (Kickul and Krueger, 2004; Shapero, 1982; Tretten, 2005; Ajzen, 1991;
Kolvereid, 1996).
2. Group II (H2):
B EI – The dependent variable EI indicates a respondent’s entrepreneurial intention of
whether to become self-employed or employed in an established organisation. There
were ten four-Likert-scale questions, developed based on modification from existing
studies (Kolvereid, 1996, Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2006, Krueger et al., 2000, Linan and
Chen, 2006, Tretten, 2005)
B SN – The independent variable of SN indicates the level of students’ compliance
towards SEE’s educator’s SN influence. The variable was measured using four items.
The items were developed based on the modification of past studies (Kolvereid, 1996,
Tretten, 2005).
3. Types of analyses. Four types of analysis were performed: collection of demographic
profiles analysis: data such as students’ years of study, university, age, gender and
pre-university academic status were collected; descriptive analysis; reliability analysis;
and hypotheses testing of simple linear and multiple regression analyses.
PAGE 38 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012
4. Hypotheses formulation. Based on the discussions regarding relevant variables that
formed the basis of theoretical framework, the paper developed two hypotheses:
B H1. SEE syllabi with ICT exposure will positively contribute to students’ ESE.
B H2. Students’ SN towards their SEE educators is less likely to influence their EI.
Findings
1. Demographic profiles. Of the 186 respondents, as depicted in Table I, the majority of
respondents were final year students. A total 67 percent of them were from public
universities with the female outnumbering the male population. Almost 94 percent of the
population fell into the 21-25 years age bracket. Of them 66 percent were Malaysian
Higher School Certificate Holders, followed by Malaysian School Certificate Holders
(12 percent), Diploma holders (11 percent) and others.
2. Descriptive analysis. As depicted in Table II, the mean score of all variables were more
than or close to three out of the four-point scale. This indicates that respondents mostly
agreed with the statements. The highest mean score of 3.14 is contributed by SEEICTwith
SN reporting the lowest mean score of 2.64. The standard deviations were 0.45 and 0.60
Table II Results of descriptive analysis
Constructs Meana SD
SEEICT 3.14 0.45ESE 2.75 0.34SN 2.64 0.60EI 2.85 0.42
Notes: a1¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ agree, 4 ¼ strongly agree
Table I Demographic profiles
Items Frequency Percentage
StudentsFinal 132 71Penultimate 54 29
UniversityUniversity I 55 30University II 69 37University III 37 20University IV 25 13
GenderMale 62 33Female 124 67
AgeUnder 20 9 4.821-25 174 93.526-30 1 0.5Above 31 2 1.1
Education levelSPM (Malaysian Certificate Examination) 22 12STPM (Malaysian Higher Certificate Examination) 122 66Diploma 21 11Matriculation 15 8Others 6 3Total 186 100
VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 39
respectively. The standard deviation scores for all the variables were below one,
indicating that the respondents have rated all elements consistently.
3. Reliability analysis. As shown in Table III, the reliability analysis found that all the variables
were highly reliable and can be used for further statistical analyses. The high alpha value
indicates high consistency in the respondents’ answers and therefore no items were
dropped.
4. Hypotheses testing.
B The Effect of SEEICT towards ESE. A simple linear regression was used to check for
the predictor value of SEEICT towards ESE. Referring to Table I (Item 3), the adjusted
R 2 result is 41.9 percent. Based on the result, the students’ SEEICT positively affects
their ESE. The result indicates that the current SEE delivery and ICT exposure that
students experience is perceived to increase their ESE. Both SEE syllabi and ample
ICT exposure enable them to build their confidence in becoming a successfully
self-employed person. The students perceived that when they receive new,
meaningful knowledge and sufficient ICT exposure provided by their universities,
the more confident they become in their entrepreneurial ability. Perhaps their
universities’ ‘‘new norm’’ practices were up to standard of the ‘‘information age
mindset.’’
The Effect of SN towards EI. A simple linear regression was used to check for the
predictor value of SN towards EI. As depicted in Table IV (Item 1), the adjusted R 2
result is 12.7 percent. Based on the result, SN of lecturers are significant but with low
explanatory power. There are various factors that may contribute to the results.
First, the students might have high locuses of control (Krueger et al., 2000), therefore
they care less about what people around them think (including SEE educators) of their
career-decision making.
Second, no educators within the students’ significant circle play a significant role in
asserting their influence towards the students’ career choice, thus the students do not
consider any ideas from them as significant; educators are either not qualified to
advise them about their future career path because of the lack of academic
credentials, expertise and entrepreneurial experience. Perhaps the confusion on the
entrepreneurship typology that were delivered by SEE educators portrayed the image
of self-employed entrepreneurs perceived by students; where students perceive
entrepreneurs as normal business persons (Cantillonian) rather than creative
destructors (Schumpeterian).
Table IV Results of regression analyses
Items R R 2 Adj. R 2 F Sig. level*
(1) Dependent variable – ESEIndependent variable – SEEICT 0.650 0.423 0.419 134.618 0.000(2) Dependent variable – EIIndependent variable – SN 0.363 0.131 0.127 27.842 0.000
Note: *Significant at 0.01 level
Table III Results of reliability analysis
Constructs No. of questions Cronbach qlpha
SEEICT 14 0.913ESE 16 0.802SN 4 0.748EI 10 0.817
PAGE 40 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012
Third, this indicates diminishing influence of educators and maybe the growing
influence of information that students obtain online, breaking the traditional social
learning perception of only lecturers providing their students with knowledge. Regular
conversations with successful entrepreneurs through online applications like
Facebook and LinkedIn asking for business tips and advice may be more
appealing to students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship.
Discussions
In order to improve the overall delivery of SEE and ICT exposure together with the declining
influence of SEE educators, there are three approaches of ‘‘creative disruption’’ that require
a drastic reconstruction of entrepreneurship knowledge to be more Schumpeterian than
Cantillonian. The 3P’s SEE Module comprises of: philosophies, policies and pedagogies,
which integrates ICT as one of the medium of delivery.
(i) Entrepreneurial philosophies
A major challenge for universities to restore the influence upon the new generation of
students requires them to radically change the way of thinking and mode of knowledge
delivery.
Universities need to play the role of being a real incubator for students by gathering
resources to provide experienced SEE educators from both the industry and academia that
are capable to expose students with what they can expect from the world of
entrepreneurship. A radical approach is to separate entrepreneurship education initiatives
from business schools by creating a unique entrepreneurship centre parked under a
strategic division that oversees the entrepreneurship development activities at faculties,
including Engineering, IT, Humanity, Arts and others (Hindle, 2007).
It is vital to change the current intellectual learning philosophy in the university from
‘‘produce’’ and ‘‘perform,’’ to ‘‘pause’’ and ‘‘reflect’’ (Cherwitz and Sullivan, 2002).
Universities need to make space for students to contemplate their personal, professional
and intellectual identities based on the experience they acquire; the kind of reflection that
can yield sustained productivity and satisfaction in the long run. By doing so, universities
can simulate the real entrepreneur world of tacit knowledge and heuristics judgment. In
addition, universities need to introduce trajectory of ‘‘discovery-ownership-accountability’’
(Cherwitz and Hurtado, 2007; Shaver and Scott, 1991). From the outset, students are
encouraged to discover their personal, intellectual, and professional interests and to make
explicit and thoughtful connections among these goals. Perhaps the adult learning
philosophy (Hannon, 2005b) that provides the foundation for reflection and analysis of
current approaches against philosophical beliefs, through discussion about the potential
contrasts and conflicts, between underpinning foundations and purpose-in-action can be a
good blueprint.
(ii) University management policies
Adaptation to rapid changes such as SEE and ICT, requires continuous and frequent
adjustments to what people do and how people do it (Lusher and Lewis, 2008) and this
requires the university management to embrace the learning organisation (LO) practices
and policies.
First, there needs to be less emphasis on organisational structure and concurrently
emphasis on systems for facilitating and implementing change. By having a flexible,
organic structure and system, a university’s management will be more receptive to adopt
and manage new technologies, especially ICT, due to less cumbersome procedures and
rules that they have to adhere to (Gephart et al., 1996) and it is considered as the primary
condition influencing a university’s ability to acquire new knowledge (Kang and Snell,
2009).
Second, there is growing literature that emphasises on the effectiveness and the roles of
mentors and professional people that influence students (Turker and Selcuk, 2009), thus
VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 41
university management should practise flexible staffing and appointment policies (Gibb,
2005). This can be done by including professorships of practice, adjunct professors,
fellowship secondments for members of the stakeholder community, and visiting
entrepreneur teaching fellowships to increase the pool of experts. Students will become
more respectful and interested to acquire knowledge from well-known experts. Next,
educators should be allowed to take sabbatical leave and attend industrial attachment to
oversee the development of entrepreneurship practices in the industry and for the
educators (Omar and Mohamed, 2009) to adapt and upgrade themselves to become
specialist mentors. Besides, educators should be given time flexibility to serve three pillars
of academic enterprise of teaching, research and outreach, therefore they will become
mutually complementary with students’ expectations (Carayannis, 2009).
Third, there should be more research and development with small firms, larger corporations
and government agencies. These parties can contribute grants for entrepreneurship
practicum and students’ consulting project. At the same time, they can absorb successful
student entrepreneurs into their organisation as intrapreneurs.
(iii) SEE educators’ pedagogies
The biggest challenge to reconstruct entrepreneurship pedagogies is to produce a
combination of the creative talents of the artist, the skills and ability of the artisan, yet include
the applied knowledge of the technician with the know-what of the professional (Anderson
and Jack, 2008).
The best way to expose students is by providing experiential entrepreneurial training such
as entrepreneurship practicum in the university during final year (Zainuddin and Rejab,
2010) and students’ consulting project (Heriot et al., 2008) through social enterprise
chapters like Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) www.sife.org. This approach will somehow
provide macro experiential learning (Wani et al., 2004) that not just affects their cognitive
learning but also affective learning too. According to Kolb and Kolb (2005), by engaging
students through experiential learning students can learn through feedback, conflict,
differences, and disagreements that draw out their beliefs and ideas about a topic through
holistic process that encompasses a person’s cognition, thinking, feeling, perceiving, and
behaving.
In addition, rapid innovation will eventually change the traditional academic roles from ‘‘the
sage on stage’’ to ‘‘a guide on the side,’’ (Hannon, 2005a). Anderson (2003) proposed deep
and meaningful formal learning, supporting one of the three forms of interaction (i.e.
student–teacher; student-student; student-content interactions) at a high level. The other
two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational
experience. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more
satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or timely
effective as less interactive learning sequences. The combination of specialised
entrepreneurship education and the ICT-based learning application contributes to
students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy. One way is to insert ICT based-business
simulations based on interactive games (Hindle, 2002) that can integrate problem-based
learning similar to popular online games programme like Football Manager, SIM City and
others.
Entrepreneurship educators should quickly embrace the latest technology to stay in
students’ SN circle of influence. The latest way of using SNSs as a medium for students to
operate their business activities, like using Facebook to perform the marketing promotion,
can increase the influence of educators.
Conclusions
The study provides an important analysis of the state of Malaysian universities’ with regards
to SEE; ICT exposure; and SEE educators’ SN impacts on students with regards to their EI.
PAGE 42 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012
Two research questions were answered, resulting in a combination that SEE and ICT
positively impacts students’ ESE and indicates a positive sign of universities managing
disruptive technologies in reaction to market demand. However, students do not wish to
comply with their respective SEE educators’ SN and this perhaps indicates growing
influence of online information (SNSs, open courseware and contents) that breaks the
traditional social learning perception.
This study has general and specific limitations that need to be taken into account. First,
the sample size was restricted to only four (4) Malaysian universities, omitting other
universities and Higher Education Institutions. The respondents were reached through
limited methods available to the researcher given the constraints in time and other
resources. The research specifically targeted students majoring in entrepreneurship,
omitting students from other majors who enrolled elective entrepreneurship subjects. The
results could have been different if the same studies were conducted on other universities
and HEIs. However, the sample size was large enough for the results to be considered as
valid (Sekaran, 2005).
Second, this research employed a cross-sectional design that focuses on specific issue at
one point at time. A longitudinal design may provide different results because the complex
and dynamic interrelationship between variables evolve over time. This would be more
suitable to capture the employment intention in detail due to its possibility to change over
time.
Third, the current study used a single item or limited-item in measuring key-constructs,
resulting in the lack of sophistication in assessing the employment intention decision making
in the context of the individual’s story, circumstances, contexts and complexities (Nabi et al.,
2006). It is difficult to measure the employment intention due to its reliance on subjective
perceptions, in which some are abstract in nature. This is acknowledged by previous
scholars who attempted to assess the entrepreneurial intention (Autio et al., 2000; Krueger
et al., 2000; Peterman and Kennedy, 2003).
Finally, the entrepreneurial intention model will remain as intention. The transition from
entrepreneurial intentions to actual start-ups is often assumed in literature, but is
under-researched when it comes to the career development and decision-making
processes. Graduate career choices are highly complex, contextualised, and diverse
processes that entail elements of various theoretical perspectives and are not too universally
accepted as a ‘‘general theory’’ (Nabi et al., 2006). The connection between training,
support, intent and actual career-choice to start-up businesses remain under-investigated.
Given the complexity of the career-decision processes a simple relationship cannot be
expected. The availability of are too many alternative intention models makes it difficult to
consistently define entrepreneurial intention and to generalise the findings. Thus, there is a
need to integrate and reduce the number of alternative intention models and to use a
consistent definition of entrepreneurial intent (Shook et al., 2003).
The results of this research have raised more questions and possibilities for future
studies. A larger sample size is needed to capture the higher generalisation impacts.
The reach and richness of the study can be increased by including other universities
and HEIs, which would provide better indicators in the future. Plus, the longitudinal
research design should be implemented to track the following batch of entrepreneurship
students to assess the impacts of entrepreneurship education over time. Future studies
can also conduct a comprehensive comparison study between entrepreneurship
education delivery in both private and public universities and determine which
entrepreneurship education course is more effective. From the findings, efforts can be
made to identity, synergise and blend the most effective methods. Lastly, future research
can also integrate various entrepreneurial intention models to capture some other
variables missing from the TPB model. The variables such as disposition factors, trigger
factors, push-pull factors, cognitive factors of entrepreneurship students and others
should be considered in a new research framework.
VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 43
References
Ajzen, I. (1991), ‘‘The theory of planned behavior’’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Alberti, F., Sciascia, S. and Poli, A. (2004), ‘‘Entrepreneurship education: notes on an ongoing debate’’,
paper presented at the 14th Annual IntEnt Conference 2004, University of Napoli Federico II, Naples.
Anderson, A.R. and Jack, S.L. (2008), ‘‘Role typologies for enterprising education: the professional
artisan?’’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 259-73.
Anderson, T. (2003), ‘‘Getting the mix right again: an updated and theoretical rationale for interaction’’,
The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 4 No. 2.
Autio, E., Sapienza, H.J. and Almeida, J.G. (2000), ‘‘Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and
imitability on international growth’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 909-24.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Basu, A. and Virick, M. (2008), ‘‘Assessing entrepreneurial intentions amongst students: a comparative
study’’, paper presented at the National Collegiate Investors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA)
Conference 200, Getting to the Point: Ideas, Process, Products, Dallas, TX, 20-22 March.
Bennett, R. (2006), ‘‘Business lecturers’ perceptions of the nature of entrepreneurship’’, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 165-88.
Bower, J.L. and Christensen, C.M. (1995), ‘‘Disruptive technology: catching the wave’’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 43-53.
Brown, J.S. and Adler, R.P. (2008), ‘‘Minds on fire: open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0’’,
EDUCAUSE Review, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 16-32.
Bryant, T. and Bryant, J. (1998), ‘‘Wetlands and entrepreneurs: mapping the fuzzy zone between,
ecosystem preservation and entrepreneurial opportunity’’, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 112-34.
Cantillon, R. (1755), Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en General (The Nature of Trade in General),
Institut National D’etudes Demographiques, Paris.
Carayannis, E.G. (2009), ‘‘Role of universities in developing first-class entrepreneurs’’, AKEPT Bulletin.
Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M. and Wiley, D. (2008), ‘‘Open educational resources: enabling
universal education’’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 1-11.
Cherwitz, R.A. and Hurtado, A.L. (2007), Interns as Intellectual Entrepreneurs, American Association of
University Professors (AAUP), Wasington, DC.
Cherwitz, R.A. and Sullivan, C.A. (2002), ‘‘Intellectual entrepreneurship a vision for graduate education’’,
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 22-7.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009), The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will
Determine Our Future, Teachers College Press, Williston, VT.
Davidsson, P. (1995), Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intentions, RENT IX Workshop, Piacenza, Italy.
Deema, R., Mokb, K.H. and Lucasa, L. (2008), ‘‘Transforming higher education in whose image?
Exploring the concept of the ‘world-class’ university in Europe and Asia’’, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 83-97.
Dilts, J.C. and Fowler, S.M. (1999), ‘‘Internships; preparing students for an entrepreneurial career’’,
Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 51-63.
Downe, S. (2007), ‘‘Models for sustainable open educational resources’’, Interdisciplinary Journal of
Knowledge and Learning Objects, Vol. 3, available at: http://ijklo.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p029-
044Downes.pdf
Ehrlich, S.B., De Noble, A.F., Jung, D.I. and Pearson, D. (2000), ‘‘The impact of entrepreneurship in
training programs on an individual’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy’’, Frontier of Entrepreneurship
Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
PAGE 44 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012
Ellison, N.B. (2007), ‘‘Facebook use on campus: a social capital perspective on social network sites’’,
paper presented at EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) Summer Symposium 2007,
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, Boulder, CO.
Elster, J. (1989), ‘‘Social norms and economic theory’’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 99-117.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lasses-Clerc, N. (2005), ‘‘Capturing variations in attitudes and intentions: a
longitudinal study to assess the pedagogical effectiveness of entrepreneurship teaching programmes
(ETP)’’, paper presented at International Council for Small Business (ICSB) World Conference,
Washington, DC, 15-18 June.
Frand, J. (2000), ‘‘Information age mindset; changes in students and implications for higher education’’,
Educause, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 15-24.
Friedman, T. (2005), The World Is Flat, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, NY.
Gelderen, M.V., Brand, M., Praag, M.V., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E. and Gils, A.V. (2006), ‘‘Some
advances in the explanation of entrepreneurial intentions’’, 3rd AGSE International Entrepreneurship
Research Exchange, February 2006, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 448-65.
Georgina, D.A. and Olson, M.R. (2008), ‘‘Integration of technology in higher education: a review of
faculty self-perceptions’’, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Gephart, M., Marsick, V., Van Buren, M. and Spiro, M. (1996), ‘‘Learning organisations come alive’’,
Training and Development, Vol. 50, pp. 35-44.
Gibb, A. (1987), ‘‘Enterprise culture – its meaning and implications for education and training’’, Journal
of European Industrial Training, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 2-38.
Gibb, A. (2005), Towards the Entrepreneurial University: Entrepreneurship Education as a Lever for
Change, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE), London.
Gottfredson, L.S. (2002), ‘‘Theory of circumscription, compromise and self creation’’, in Brown, D. (Ed.),
Career Choice and Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Grundsten, H. (2004), ‘‘Entrepreneurial intentions and the entrepreneurial environment: a study of
technology-based new venture creation’’, Doctor of Science in Technology thesis, Helsinki University of
Technology, Helsinki.
Hannon, P.D. (2005a), ‘‘Graduate entrepreneurship in the UK: defining a research and education policy
framework’’, paper presented at the 28th ISBE National Conference ‘‘Illuminating Entrepreneurship’’,
Blackpool.
Hannon, P.D. (2005b), ‘‘Philosophies of enterprise and entrepreneurship education and challenges for
higher education in the UK’’, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 105-14.
Hansemark, O.C. (1998), ‘‘The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on need for achievement and
locus of control of reinforcement’’, International Journal of Entrepreuneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 28-50.
Heriot, K.C., Cook, R., Jones, R.C. and Simpson, L. (2008), ‘‘The use of student consulting projects as an
active learning pedagogy: a case study in a production/operations management course’’, Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 463-81.
Hindle, K. (2002), ‘‘A grounded theory for teaching entrepreneurship using simulation games’’,
Simulation Gaming, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 236-41.
Hindle, K. (2007), Teaching Entrepreneurship at University: From the Wrong Building to the Right
Philosophy, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Houston, D. (2008), ‘‘Rethinking quality and improvement in higher education’’, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 61-79.
Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004), ‘‘What is ’enterprise education’?: An analysis of the objectives and
methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries’’, Education þ Training, Vol. 46
No. 1, pp. 11-23.
VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 45
Jedeskog, G. and Nissen, J. (2004), ‘‘ICT in the classroom: is doing more important than knowing?’’,
Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
Kang, S. and Snell, S. (2009), ‘‘Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: a framework
for human resource management’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 65-92.
Kickul, J. and Krueger, N. (2004), ‘‘A cognitive processing model of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
intentionality’’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
Kirby, D. (2004), ‘‘Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?’’, Education
þ Training, Vol. 46 Nos 8/9, pp. 510-9.
Kolb, A.Y. and Kolb, D.A. (2005), ‘‘Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning
in higher education’’, Academy of Management Learning & Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 193-212.
Kolvereid, L. (1996), ‘‘Prediction of self-employment status choice intentions’’, Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 47-57.
Kolvereid, L. and Isaksen, E. (2006), ‘‘New business start-up and subsequent entry into
self-employment’’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 866-85.
Krueger, N. and Brazeal, D. (1994), ‘‘Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs’’,
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 91-104.
Krueger, N. and Carsrud, A. (1993), ‘‘Entrepreneurial intention: applying the theory of planned
behavior’’, Entrepreneurial and Regional Development, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 315-30.
Krueger, N.F. (1993), ‘‘The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture
feasibility and desirability’’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Krueger, N.F. and Kickul, J. (2006), ‘‘So you thought the intentions model was simple?: Navigating the
complexities and interactions of cognitive style, culture, gender, social norms, and intensity on the
pathways to entrepreneurship’’, paper presented at USASBE Conference, Tuscon, AZ.
Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), ‘‘Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions’’,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5/6, pp. 411-32.
Krumboltz, J.D., Mitchell, A.M. and Jones, G.B. (1976), ‘‘A social learning theory of career selection’’,
Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 71-81.
Kuratko, D.F. (2005), ‘‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and
challenges’’, Journal of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 577-98.
Kurbanoglu, S. (2003), ‘‘Self-efficacy: a concept closely linked to information literacy and lifelong
learning’’, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 635-46.
Lee, E.O. and Bertera, E. (2007), ‘‘Teaching diversity by using instructional technology: application of
self-efficacy and cultural competence’’, Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 112-25.
Lee, J.-H. and Venkataraman, S. (2006), ‘‘Aspirations, market offerings and the pursuit of entrepreneurial
opportunities’’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 107-23.
Levesque, M. and Minniti, M. (2006), ‘‘The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior’’, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 177-94.
Linan, F. and Chen, Y.-W. (2006), Testing the Entrepreneurial Intention Model on a Two-country Sample,
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.
Linan, F., Rodriguez-Cohard, J.C. and Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. (2005), ‘‘Factors affecting entrepreneurial
intention levels’’, paper presented at the 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association,
Amsterdam.
Lusher, L. and Lewis, M. (2008), ‘‘Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: working through
paradoxes’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 221-40.
March, J.G. (1988), Decisions and Organizations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Mavondo, F., Chimhanzi, J. and Stewart, J. (2005), ‘‘Learning orientation and market orientation:
Relationship with innovation, human resource practices and performance’’, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 1235-63.
PAGE 46 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012
Meyer, M. (2004), ‘‘Individual inventors, entrepreneurial activity and public support measures’’, Working
Paper No. 2004/5, Institute of Strategy and International Business, Helsinki University of Technology,
Espoo.
MSC (2010), Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) Status, MSC Malaysia Sdn Bhd, Selangor.
Nabi, G., Holden, R. and Walmsley, A. (2006), ‘‘Graduate career-making and business start-up: a
literature review’’, Education þ Training, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 373-85.
Noble, A.F.D., Jung, D. and Ehrlich, S.B. (1999), ‘‘Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: the development of a
measure and its relationship with entrepreneurial action’’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
Oliver, B. and Burke, V. (2008), ‘‘Undergraduate students’ adoption of handheld devices and Web 2.0
applications to supplement formal learning experiences: case studies in Australia, Ethiopia and
Malaysia’’, International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 78-94.
Omar, I.C. and Mohamed, Z. (2009), ‘‘Current practises, challenges and the future of entrepreneurship
education at Universiti Malaysia Kelantan’’, paper presented at the National Leadership Research
Conference 2009: Entrepreneurship in Higher Education, Putrajaya International Convention Centre,
Putrajaya.
Passig, D. and Levin, H. (2000), ‘‘Gender differences of favored multimedia learning interfaces’’, Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 16, pp. 64-71.
Peluchette, J. and Karl, K. (2008), ‘‘Social networking profiles: an examination of student attitudes
regarding use and appropriateness of content’’, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 95-7.
Peterman, N. and Kennedy, J. (2003), ‘‘Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of
entrepreneurship’’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129-44.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007), ‘‘Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence’’,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 479-510.
Rahim, M., Chong, S. and Chew, K. (2008), ‘‘Learning organization disciplines and internet usage:
an empirical study from Malaysia’’, International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 462-83.
Reynolds, P., Bygrave, W.D., Autio, E., Arenius, P., Fitsimmons, P., Minniti, M., Murray, S., O’Goran, C.
and Roche, F. (2004), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2003 Global Report), GEM, London.
Savickas, M.L. (2002), ‘‘Career construction: a developmental theory of vocational behavior’’, in Brown,
D. (Ed.), Career Choice and Development, Jossey–Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Scholten, V., Kemp, R. and Omta, O. (2004), ‘‘Entrepreneurship for life: the entrepreneurial intention
among academics in the life sciences’’, paper presented at the European Summer University.
Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Sekaran, U. (2005), Research Methods for the Business, John Wiley & Sons, Antioch, IL.
Shapero, A. (1982), ‘‘Social dimensions of entrepreneurship’’, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. and Vesper,
K.H. (Eds), The Encylopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982), ‘‘The social dimensions of entrepreneurship’’, in Kent, C.A.,
Sexton, D.L. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Shaver, K.G. and Scott, L.R. (1991), ‘‘Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation’’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 23-45.
Shook, C.L., Priem, R.L. and McGee, J.E. (2003), ‘‘New venture creation and the enterprising individual:
a review and synthesis’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 379-99.
Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S. and Tarabishy, A. (2002), ‘‘The state of entrepreneurship education in the United
States: a nationwide survey and analysis’’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 1-22.
Tkachev, A. and Kolvereid, L. (1999), ‘‘Self-employment intentions among Russian students’’,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 269-80.
VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 47
Tretten, P. (2005), ‘‘Attitude role in self-employment’’, master’s thesis in Engineering Psychology, Lulea
University of Technology, Lulea.
Turker, D. and Selcuk, S.S. (2009), ‘‘Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university
students?’’, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 142-59.
Varela, R. and Jimenez, J.E. (2001), ‘‘The effect of entrepreneurship education in the universities of
Cali’’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Conference Proceedings, 2001.
Wani, V.P., Garg, T.K. and Sharma, S.K. (2004), ‘‘Effective industry/institute interaction for developing
entrepreneurial vision amongst engineers for the sustainable development of SMEs in India’’,
International Journal of Technology Transfer & Commercialisation, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 272-81.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1999), Facilitating Learning Organisations: Making Learning Count, Gower,
Brookfield, VT.
Watson, G., Johnson, G.C. and Austin, H. (2004), ‘‘Exploring relatedness to field of study as an indicator
of student retention’’, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J. and Marlino, D. (2007), ‘‘Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial
career intentions: Implications of entrepreneurship education’’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 387-406.
Zainuddin, M.N. and Rejab, M.R.M. (2010), ‘‘Assessing ‘‘ME generation’s’’ entrepreneurship degree
programmes in Malaysia’’, Education þ Training, Vol. 52 Nos 6/7, pp. 508-27.
About the authors
Muhammad Nizam Zainuddin completed his MPhil degree from Multimedia University,Cyberjaya, Malaysia in 2009, and graduated from Universiti Tenaga Nasional with a BBA(Hons) in Entrepreneur Development in 2002. His areas of specialisation areentrepreneurship education, ICT, creativity and innovation, and behavioural science. He isan entrepreneurship lecturer/educator at the Faculty of Management, Multimedia University,Malaysia. Muhammad Nizam Zainuddin is the corresponding author and can be contactedat: muhammad.nizam@mmu.edu.my or nizam.zainuddin@gmail.com
Mohd Fairuz Abd Rahim is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Managemet, Multimedia University,Malaysia. He holds a MPhil degree from Multimedia University, Malaysia and is currentlypursuing his PhD in the area of learning organisation and human resource management.
Mohd Rozaini Mohd Rejab holds a master’s degree in Information Management from MARAUniversity of Technology, Malaysia. His areas of interests are strategy and managementhistory. He is currently lecturing at the Faculty of Management, Multimedia University,Malaysia.
PAGE 48 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 20 NO. 1 2012
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
top related