1

Empowerment of women entrepreneurship education by short academic programs

Hans Michael Guelich1

Ulrike Guelich2

Abstract

Previous studies show that in nearly every economy there are fewer female than male

entrepreneurs (Kelley et al., 2013). Entrepreneurs drive economic growth and societal well-being

through their investments, innovation, and job creation and half of these talents are women. This

empirical study explores gender related differences and the value of short academic programs in

entrepreneurship education, defined as a one to three week academic course with transferable

credits. Can women be encouraged towards entrepreneurship by studying these programs with a

combination of lectures, company visits, discussing with entrepreneurs and top executives,

bridging academics and practice, businesses and politics? What are the incubating and

accelerating components to support women entrepreneurship education and women

entrepreneurship in general? This study explores the impact of a multidimensional program

structure and the implementation of serendipitous concepts and how to act as the host. Our

findings suggest that short academic programs can raise interest in entrepreneurship especially

for women and can lead them to apply for further studies in entrepreneurship. Short academic

programs for female students with a specifically designed portfolio result in more interest in

entrepreneurship and contribute to higher rates of women entering entrepreneurship education

and in series to increased women entrepreneurship rates.

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurship is a highly appreciated form of economic empowerment where

entrepreneurs and their talents drive economic growth and societal well-being through their

investments, innovation, and job creation. Half of these talents in this ecosystem are women, and

very often this resource is underutilized despite the knowledge that entrepreneurial activities of

women are an important way to achieve leadership roles (Bullough et al., 2015). Gender equality

1

hans.guelich@gmail.com; BUSEM Bangkok University School of Entrepreneurship Management, Bangkok 2

ulrike.guelich@gmail.com; BUSEM Bangkok University School of Entrepreneurship Management, Bangkok

Presented at ASAIHL 2016 Conference “Mapping out new Landscape of Higher Education in Southeast Asia”, February 2016

2

and the empowerment of women are regarded as an effective way to combat poverty, hunger and

disease and to stimulate sustainable developments in economies (Neimanis & Tortisyn, 2003).

Kelley et al. (2013) report that women’s entrepreneurship participation differs around the world,

as does their impact on innovation and job creation. Educated women are more likely to invest in

health and education of their children than their male counterparts, thus creating a positive

societal cycle. However, due to the rapidly intensifying economic globalization and its effects on

societies, vulnerable employment and gender disparity increasingly prevail (Peña-López, 2015).

Entrepreneurship courses and programs and their actual impact are a matter of growing

concern, their evaluation is limited and –if conducted- usually aims to understand students’

attitudes at the end of a specific program (Kailer, 2007; Karlsson & Moberg, 2013). However,

answers if the courses actually support the development of an entrepreneurial skillset and

entrepreneurial capabilities, and answers, how these courses need to be designed to achieve the

goal, are rarely provided. Previous research in addition indicates that regular assessments of

study courses, results and student satisfaction with specific courses face limitations in evaluating

entrepreneurial skills and abilities (Kailer, 2007; Moberg, 2011). Despite a mounting number of

programs worldwide seeking to provide women with business leadership skills, there is little

research on effective entrepreneurship education or training for women entrepreneurs and how a

course design, both practically and theoretically, can lead to sustainable success in

entrepreneurship education programs (Bullough et al., 2015).

Can entrepreneurship be taught?

The need for entrepreneurial behavior is a common feature in business environments,

both for entrepreneurs and for intrapreneurs. This has led to a demand for better entrepreneurial

skills to prepare them to deal with challenges and uncertainty (Heinonen & Poikkijoki, 2005).

Investments in human capital development in general and in entrepreneurial knowledge and

skills in particular, are positively related to business success, such as firm size, firm profitability

and firm growth (Unger et al., 2011) and are a positive predictor of business survival and

advancement (Zanakis et al., 2012). Entrepreneurial attributes like problem-solving skills,

readiness for change and creativity are essential for the economic development of a society

which highlights today’s relevance of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education (Henry et

al., 2005). Entrepreneurship as an educational field is growing with the ongoing discussion, if

3

entrepreneurship can be taught and how entrepreneurship courses should differ from traditional

management courses (Karlsson & Moberg, 2013; Neck & Greene, 2011). Unger et al. (2011)

propose that a human capital & entrepreneurial success relationship was higher for knowledge

and skills as an outcome of education and specifically higher for human capital that was directly

related to entrepreneurial tasks. Previous research indicates the importance of action-based and

experiential approaches to developing entrepreneurial capabilities (Erkkilä, 2000; Gibb, 2008;

Heinonen & Hytti, 2010). Objectives of entrepreneurship education include equipping students

with broadened perspectives, an entrepreneurial knowledge base and skillset and entrepreneurial

behavior in order to enable them to entrepreneurial activities (Blenker et al, 2006; Ilozor et al.,

2006; Moberg, 2011). The grasp and successful transformation of the course objectives into

entrepreneurship studies are key success factors for effective academic and non-academic

programs (Klofsten, 2000).

Many students pursue entrepreneurship as a career goal, equivalent with choosing a

certain life path, different from those students pursuing “careers”. The focus on the entrepreneur

as a person demands a more dynamic way in looking at “knowledge structures that people use to

make assessments, judgments, or decisions involving opportunity evaluation, venture creation,

and growth” (Mitchell et al., 2002, p. 97). Entrepreneurship education pays attention to the

“what” and “how” to teach, including how to understand an individual’s decision to become an

entrepreneur. Time is appointed to the identification and exploitation of opportunities and

increasingly to the central question: how do people think entrepreneurially (Ilozor et al., 2006)?

A hands-on group oriented approach tends to be an effective way of teaching entrepreneurship.

However, little is known about when, how and why this learning environment contributes to the

development of an entrepreneurial mind- and skillset and the decision to become an entrepreneur

and leaves this field open for individual assessments of individual courses (Moberg, 2011).

Entrepreneurship education and gender

General consensus exists that women entrepreneurs use their earned income to support

their family and their households, improving their standard of living and creating physically and

financially healthier families (Calas et al., 2009; Coleman, 2004; Langowitz et al., 2005; Minniti,

2009; Zanakis et al., 2012). Wilson et al. (2007) suggest that entrepreneurship education is more

important for females than for males in increasing self-efficacy as an important entrepreneurial

4

trait. Successful women entrepreneurship training also relies on a diverse socioeconomic

environment. For aspiring women entrepreneurs, it can raise the levels of self-efficacy and

increase the interest in starting an own venture (Wilson et al., 2007). Matlay et al (2010) found

that positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship after course completion were generally lower for

female students compared to males whereas the course impact was perceived to be higher for

female students. Results suggest that female students benefitted considerably from their learning

experience in the entrepreneurship course in terms of perceptions of pursuing an entrepreneurial

career (Matlay et al., 2010).

Influencing factors

Since entrepreneurship requires practice, Neck and Greene (2011) emphasize to teach

entrepreneurship as a method rather than as a process, because learning a method may be more

important in a fast changing environment than learning content. Entrepreneurial methods include

a body of skills or techniques, a toolkit, creativity, iteration, experimentation and practice.

(1) Emotional events: The development of entrepreneurial competencies is positively

affected by experiencing emotional events during an action-based entrepreneurship education

program. Lackéus (2014) detected three kinds of emotional events with a strong link to develop

entrepreneurial competencies: interaction with outside world, uncertainty and ambiguity, and

team-work experience. All three lead to entrepreneurial identity building, increased self-efficacy,

entrepreneurial insights and an increased tolerance towards uncertainty and ambiguity. A

program with frequent interaction with the outside world has shown to be the most common,

associated with very positive emotions. Team work experience was associated half positive and

half negative, followed by a diverse student background (“individual differences between the

students”), which is associated to 100% with negative emotions (Lackéus, 2014).

(2) Information transfer and networking: Lack of information is regarded as the No. 5

constraining factor for entrepreneurship in Thailand as the result from the National Expert

Survey in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Thailand Report (Guelich, 2014). It is also one of

the main recommendations named to improve entrepreneurial framework conditions. Gathering

information and gaining access to knowledge is one of the most important resources and is

accessed through networks (Klyver & Hindle, 2007). The environment in which people act also

shapes their opportunity perception dependent on the information network available. Networking

5

generally provides access to resources through formal and informal channels (Chittithaworn et

al., 2011). Findings from Thailand suggest that informal channels are a more successful way for

knowledge transfer than official attempts of technology transfer (Belton, 2012). Programs that

enable students to gain experience in a real business context and to access mentoring capacity

gives them the opportunity to explore and develop their entrepreneurial skills through an action-

based approach and learning-by-experiencing from others (Rasmussen & Sørheim, 2006).

(3) Serendipity: Entrepreneurship is not always a streamlined planning process and is

frequently not completely intentional. For many entrepreneurs, start-up intentions tend to stay

“wishful thinking” and do not take place, whereas others discover sudden entrepreneurial

opportunities, triggered through activities or events. Serendipity in entrepreneurship can be

described as an exploration while suddenly stumbling over a potential idea, a new concept, an

unintended discovery; something that gets the person started into entrepreneurial activities.

Serendipitous entrepreneurship may be quite prevalent in entrepreneurship (Dew, 2009) and “can

be the result of chance, good timing, or simply being in the right place at the right time”

(Wennberg, 2010, p.11).

METHOD

Using data collected from 23 students after a one week and from 100 students after a

three week academic program, both with transferable credits, this study explores the impact of a

multidimensional program structure and the implementation of serendipitous concepts and how

to act as the host. Of the 123 students, 73 students were female and 50 students were male. The

majority of the questions were to be answered on a 6 point Likert scale where 1=excellent,

2=very good, 3= good, 4=average, 5=below average and 6=failed. The significance of the

answers to the research question was tested by using regression. One part of the survey was

conducted on the last day of the “International Week”. Bachelor Students with the three different

study backgrounds Financial Services, Real Estate and Business Administration from Fontys

University of Applied Science, The Netherlands, spent one week in Bangkok with a focus on

regional development as business environment for incubation and acceleration. Further, answers

were provided by 100 participants from 18 different countries and 60 different universities who

attended a three-week International Summer University program on entrepreneurship, which

included cross-cultural experiences, travel, company visits and meetings with entrepreneurs. In

6

contrast to the international week, the three week program provided an intensified intercultural

experience for the participants with longer exposure to influencing environment and activities.

RESULTS

Gender related differences in entrepreneurship education through short academic

programs are found. There is a significant relationship only for female students who are more

interested in entrepreneurship after one week and the wish to study a specific one year dual

degree Master in Entrepreneurship. No significance was found for both genders for the variable

“increased interest in entrepreneurship”, even though the overall grading of the week was valued

positive by 100 % of the male students and by 98.2 % of the female students. The overall grading

of all “lectures and companies’ visits” are significantly related to becoming more interested in

entrepreneurship for females (.047), but not for males (.627), whereas no significance was found

for a single specific lecture or company visit.

Overall, 81 % of the female and 77.5% of the male students were more interested in

entrepreneurship after the course. 63.3% of the female students with family business background

(81.3 % male), and nearly all female students without family business background (91.7% vs.

75% male) were more interested in entrepreneurship after the course. For the one-week program,

there is a significant relationship (.046) for those women who tend to be more interested in

entrepreneurship after the week and the wish to study a one year dual degree Master in

Entrepreneurship, whereas this is not significant for male students (.186). Considering family

background, female students with a family business and with more interest in entrepreneurship

after the week, had a significant increase in the wish to study the one year dual degree (.012)

while this was not relevant for male students. Similar findings evolved for the three-week

program; however the family business background proved not to be significant to further studies

in the master program for female students. Regression analysis showed the highest significance

for those female students who had increased their confidence level during the program (.000), to

age (.012), an increase in their interest in entrepreneurship (.015) and a perceived increase in

their entrepreneurial skillset (.022) after the program. Our findings suggest that especially female

students benefit from short academic programs in entrepreneurship with an increased interest in

entrepreneurial education. A longer program (three weeks vs. one week) may eliminate barriers

which might derive from different family backgrounds. Our findings propose that female

students without family business background benefit equally in a three-week course to female

7

students with a family business background. These findings, despite the need for further studies,

can be a first answer to the research gap and existing limitations in entrepreneurship course

evaluations, if courses can actually support the development of an entrepreneurial skillset and

entrepreneurial capabilities and abilities (Kailer, 2007; Moberg, 2011).

Three key take-aways related to the program and three related to the students personally

revealed potential influencing factors for short academic programs to support this theory:

(1) Information transfer might empower female students in combination with

environmental design elements of scope, variety and diversity of the content, a combination of

soft and hard entrepreneurial knowledge, an unknown and inspiring environment, cross-cultural

communication and a perceived feminist entrepreneurship, probably stemming from the given

environment in Thailand with near entrepreneurial gender equality, serving as a role model;

(2) Networking and embedded network opportunities in the program created impact in

combination with the diversity of the offered networks and a continuous sequence of tenses for

networking. Knowing entrepreneurs is a well-discussed important resource for existing and

future entrepreneurs, where networks form important relationships to the individual person and

matter more for the entrepreneurial outcome than any economic function of this tie (Hite &

Hesterly, 2001). Meeting entrepreneurs as role models can also be seen as interaction with the

real world, an important step in achieving an entrepreneurial skillset (Lackéus, 2014). Our

findings suggest that the design of the program delivers the desired result of an increased

entrepreneurial mind- and skillset for women in combination with meeting the entrepreneur in

person and their fascinating stories, meeting high-potential persons and receiving insights,

personal tips and tricks from professional practitioners;

(3) Location and (4) Host educator, the hospitality environment, personality and behavior

of the stakeholders as a joint team combined with the team work experience of the participants;

(5) Confidence level and (6) Interest in entrepreneurship.

DISCUSSION

The findings that a short academic program of one week could raise the confidence level

of female students and their interest in entrepreneurship especially for those with family business

background and could lead them to apply for further studies in entrepreneurship and -on the

other hand- the findings from the longer three-week program that barriers for female students are

8

eliminated which might derive from different family backgrounds, can be a first answer to

existing research limitations in entrepreneurship course evaluations. This study might deliver

insight to the questions of Kailer (2007) and Moberg (2011), that courses can actually support

the development of an entrepreneurial skillset and entrepreneurial capabilities and abilities. The

findings that female students without family business background benefit equally to those from a

family business background in a three-week course suggest that short academic programs for

female students with a specifically designed portfolio might result in increased interest in

entrepreneurship and contribute to higher rates of women entering entrepreneurship education

and finally to increased women entrepreneurship rates. We hereby confirm the findings of the

empirical study of Lackéus (2014), that interaction with the outside world, uncertainty and

ambiguity, and team-work experience could represent effective design principles of

entrepreneurial education. The program design and the offered portfolio might act as a tutorial

for self-reflection and mediation practice on entrepreneurship embedded in the professional

discourse with academics and entrepreneurs at the intersection of disciplines, lectures, company

visits, meeting the entrepreneur, guided search tours, own field studies and location finding.

Regarding serendipitous entrepreneurship, the results reveal that the short programs

equally apply and transfer the concept of art education on the side of the host as the educator and

the concept of serendipity on the side of the participants and their perception. This concept was

initially developed for an exhibition for modern and contemporary art, documenta 12 in Kassel,

Germany (2007): having no traditional “art guide” but a newly defined “Kunstvermittler”

(literally translated to “art mediator”), who acted as a go-between for the visitor and the artwork,

storytelling conversations with the artist while he was creating the artwork on site, delivering the

artist’s perception from scratch to practice. Transferring this concept to a short academic

program in order to receive the desired output of entrepreneurial skillsets means that the educator

uses art education as a new impulse for entrepreneurship education: as “structured serendipity”,

where the host is the “entrepreneurship mediator”. On the participants’ side, the design and

portfolio of the program encourages serendipitous entrepreneurial experiences of the students to

find the unexpected.

Limitations and future research

9

Limitations of this study include the relatively small number of interviewees and the

unknown transferability of results to other contexts. Since this initial exploratory study was

aimed as a starting point in the research of the impact of short academic programs for female

students, further surveys will try to implement the findings to have more specific observations

towards the “when, how and why” this learning environment contributes to the development of

an entrepreneurial mind- and skillset and to the decision to become an entrepreneur. Fotore

studies need to investigate closer, if the “art mediator” from art education can effectively be

transferred to entrepreneurship and if an “entrepreneurship mediator” or “entrepreneurship

conveyer” can be created to serve as model for women entrepreneurship education.

References

Belton, Ben. (2012). Culture, social relations and private sector development in the Thai and

Vietnamese fish hatchery sectors. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 53(2), 133-146.

Blenker, Per, Dreisler, Poul, & Kjeldsen, John. (2006). Entrepreneurship Education–the new

challenge facing the universities. Department of management. Aarhus School of Business

Working Paper, 2.

Calas, Marta B, Smircich, Linda, & Bourne, Kristina A. (2009). Extending the boundaries:

Reframing “entrepreneurship as social change” through feminist perspectives. Academy

of Management Review, 34(3), 552-569.

Chittithaworn, Chuthamas, Islam, Md Aminul, Keawchana, Thiyada, & Yusuf, Dayang Hasliza

Muhd. (2011). Factors affecting business success of small & medium enterprises (SMEs)

in Thailand. Asian Social Science, 7(5), p180.

Coleman, Susan. (2004). Access to debt capital for women-and minority-owned small firms:

does educational attainment have an impact? Journal of Developmental

Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 127.

Erkkilä, Kristiina. (2000). Entrepreneurial education: mapping the debates in the United States,

the United Kingdom and Finland: Taylor & Francis.

Gibb, AA. (2008). Entrepreneurship and enterprise education in schools and colleges: Insights

from UK practice. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 6(2), 48.

Guelich, Ulrike. (2014). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Thailand Report 2013. Bangkok:

Bangkok University.

Heinonen, Jarna, & Hytti, Ulla. (2010). Back to basics: the role of teaching in developing the

entrepreneurial university. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and

Innovation, 11(4), 283-292.

Henry, Colette, Hill, Frances, & Leitch, Claire. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training:

can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I. Education+ Training, 47(2), 98-111.

Hite, Julie M, & Hesterly, William S. (2001). The evolution of firm networks: From emergence

to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 275-286.

Ilozor, Benedict, Sarki, Ayuba, Hodd, Michael, Heinonen, Jarna, & Poikkijoki, Sari-Anne.

(2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: mission

impossible? Journal of management development, 25(1), 80-94.

10

Kailer, Norbert. (2007). 14 Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: planning problems,

concepts and proposals for evaluation design. Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship

Education: Contextual perspectives, 221.

Karlsson, Tomas, & Moberg, Kåre. (2013). Improving perceived entrepreneurial abilities

through education: Exploratory testing of an entrepreneurial self efficacy scale in a pre-

post setting. The International Journal of Management Education, 11(1), 1-11.

Kelley, Donna, Brush, Candida, Greene, Patricia, & Litovsky, Yana. (2013). GEM 2012

Women's Report: (GERA / GEM).

Klofsten, Magnus. (2000). Training entrepreneurship at universities: a Swedish case. Journal of

European Industrial Training, 24(6), 337-344.

Klyver, Kim, & Hindle, Kevin. (2007). The role of social networks at different stages of business

formation. Small Enterprise Research, 15(1), 22-38.

Lackéus, Martin. (2014). An emotion based approach to assessing entrepreneurial education. The

International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 374-396.

Langowitz, Nan S, Minniti, Maria, & Arenius, Pia. (2005). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor:

2004 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship. University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in

Entrepreneurship.

Matlay, Harry, Packham, Gary, Jones, Paul, Miller, Christopher, Pickernell, David, & Thomas,

Brychan. (2010). Attitudes towards entrepreneurship education: a comparative analysis.

Education+ Training, 52(8/9), 568-586.

Minniti, Maria. (2009). Gender issues in entrepreneurship: Now Publishers Inc.

Mitchell, Ronald K, Busenitz, Lowell, Lant, Theresa, McDougall, Patricia P, Morse, Eric A, &

Smith, J Brock. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the

people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 27(2),

93-104.

Moberg, Kåre Sven. (2011). Evaluating content dimensions in entrepreneurship education.

Available at SSRN 1969852.

Neck, Heidi M, & Greene, Patricia G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and

new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.

Neimanis, A. , & Tortisyn, A. . (2003). NHDR Occasional Paper 2: Gender Thematic Guidance

Note National Human Development Report Series.

Peña-López, Ismael. (2015). Rethinking Education. Towards a global common good?

Rasmussen, Einar A, & Sørheim, Roger. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education.

Technovation, 26(2), 185-194.

Unger, Jens M, Rauch, Andreas, Frese, Michael, & Rosenbusch, Nina. (2011). Human capital

and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing,

26(3), 341-358.

Wennberg, Karl. (2010). Serendipitous entrepreneurship. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship

Research, 30(7), 1.

Wilson, Fiona, Kickul, Jill, & Marlino, Deborah. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial Self‐Efficacy,

and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship Education1.

Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(3), 387-406.

Zanakis, Stelios H, Renko, Maija, & Bullough, Amanda. (2012). Nascent entrepreneurs and the

transition to entrepreneurship: why do people start new businesses? Journal of

Developmental Entrepreneurship, 17(01), 1250001.