From fluctuation and fragility to innovation and sustainability: The role of a member network in UK enterprise education

Abstract

Enterprise education has been identified as suffering from fluctuating policy, inconsistent funding and faddish practice, thereby limiting the development of a sustainable community of scholar-practitioners. In view of these constraints, this article considers the position of often-isolated enterprise educators and focuses on the role networks play in supporting their sustainable professional development and hence the domain itself. A case-based analysis draws on social-constructivist concepts of networks and communities of practice (CoPs) to analyse a UK network, Enterprise Educators UK (EEUK). It is argued that the member-driven nature of EEUK is unique and important for providing a sustainable forum through which enterprise educators can engage, share practice, find identity, develop ownership of and deliver sustained innovation in enterprise education. Generating a rich picture of the enterprise educator’s ecosystem, the article makes a methodological contribution to network research by undertaking a longitudinal analysis of a decade of ‘Best Practice’ events. It extends the CoP theory of peripheral participation and identity in professional associations and derives practical implications for enterprise educator networks. Recommendations are made for future research and dissemination of enterprise educator practice at, between and beyond events to further the development of the international enterprise education domain.

Keywords

Best practice community of practice EEUK enterprise educators networks

The important role that education plays in promoting entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviours is well established (e.g. European Commission, 2012; UK Department of Business Innovation and Skills, 2013). National governments have introduced policies to support enterprise education (Young, 2014). However, despite the dramatic increases in provision over the last two decades, funding remains unevenly distributed (EC, 2012; Rae et al., 2012). As a result, enterprise education struggles to establish institutional embeddedness, attract sufficient internal resources and gain legitimacy across areas outside the business school (Henry, 2013; Jones et al., 2014). Given enterprise’s economic and social panacea status (Henry et al., 2003; WEF, 2009; Young, 2014), this is a serious concern.

Smith and Paton (2014) describe enterprise education as ‘faddish’ and transient, linking this characterization to dependency on changing political agendas at all levels, and hence sustainability of provision ‘suffering’ from ‘external interventions, policy fluctuations and spasmodic funding’ (Smith and Paton, 2014: 553). Beresford and Beresford (2010) likewise express concern at the ‘precarious’ nature of UK enterprise education, identifying a lack of widespread funding in higher education for developing enterprise education practice. This article builds on this concern about sustainability and evaluates the role networks play in supporting the sustainable professional development of often-isolated enterprise educators. Although the research is located in the United Kingdom, the issues, findings and implications are relevant for the broader international sector. The article begins by reviewing the nature and challenges of enterprise and entrepreneurship education and related issues for enterprise educators. It thereby places enterprise and entrepreneurship education within an andragogic rather than a pedagogic paradigm where learning is situated, experiential and increasingly student-led, but where the role of the educator remains central in fostering, facilitating and nurturing the learning process (Bird, 2002).

Encouraging, supporting and developing related teaching practice is the focus of the second section of the article, which explores how current practice can be developed and sustained through the sharing of educator practice. Whilst such ‘best practice’ has been described pejoratively in analyses of enterprise education (Jones et al., 2014), here the ‘sharing’ and ‘co-development’ of practice are interpreted as part of a broad forum and mechanism through which disciplinary identity, ongoing professional support and innovation can be developed.

Following calls for more practice-based research (Pittaway and Edwards, 2012), the article draws its empirical evidence from a case-based analysis of a decade of enterprise education Best Practice events run by a single UK membership-based network – Enterprise Educators UK (EEUK). It extends earlier research on the role of networks in supporting enterprise and entrepreneurship education (Beresford and Beresford, 2010) by covering an entire decade of Best Practice events (2005–2015). The article also extends previous research on networks and ‘communities of practice’ (CoPs) and argues that in the current context of fluctuation, faddishness and fragility, a member-driven network like EEUK offers enterprise educators a liminal space in which to develop their professional identity and practice.

The nature and challenge of enterprise and entrepreneurship

Enterprise and entrepreneurship education is a relatively new phenomenon in higher education (Higgins et al., 2013), but it is growing rapidly as a field of inquiry. ‘Ghettoisation’ within the business area (Beresford and Beresford, 2010: 276) is at odds with a view of enterprise learning as interdisciplinary and ‘an emotional experience’, posing a challenge within the ‘traditional backdrop’ of higher education (Gibb, 2011: 152). Whilst this is starting to change, there is broad consensus that traditional pedagogical methods are insufficient to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit in students (Neck et al., 2014) or to equip them for a life of uncertainty and complexity requiring individual initiative (Gibb, 2005). Unlike traditional academic disciplines such as psychology, there is no stable canon of knowledge that represents enterprise and entrepreneurship, nor there is an established methodology for educating entrepreneurs.

Calls have been made to draw on philosophical frameworks that acknowledge the practice-based nature of enterprise and enterprise education (Neck et al., 2014). There is a view that enterprise and entrepreneurship education should take place in learning environments of uncertainty and complexity (Gibb, 2011; Neck et al., 2014), encouraging personal development through affective, conative and cognitive learning (Kyro, 2006). These learning environments would provide opportunities for learning ‘by doing’ and from ‘failure’, with reflexivity and social co-participation as key enablers. However, given that these are not traditional characteristics of university pedagogy, what are the implications for enterprise educators and sustainable enterprise education?

The enterprise educator

It is not easy (or necessarily desirable) to define how ‘best’ to teach entrepreneurship (Klapper and Farber, 2016) or how to develop educators. Enterprise educators are not short of advice on how to develop approaches to learning and teaching, and they face a wide range of typologies and frameworks. Smith and Paton (2014: 552) suggest that a problematic consequence of this variation in enterprise education is the ‘sheer magnitude and diversity and scale of provision’, some of which is regarded as ‘transient and faddish’.

A consensus is emerging that learning in enterprise and entrepreneurship should be student-led (Jones et al., 2014), especially given the need to cultivate innovative ways of thinking (Higgins et al., 2013). Such autonomous learning requires facilitation and extensive collaboration between educators and learners. Without the support of the educator, students may stagnate in their learning (Loyens et al., 2008).

This facilitative role is not new to education. However, as Neck et al. (2014) argue, it places substantial pressures on enterprise educators who may be working in isolation in their own organizations, often against institutional and administrative norms. Enterprise educators face the challenge of trying to introduce innovative practices (Pittaway and Edwards, 2012), whilst balancing often contradictory demands – such as institutional and student demand for certitude (Gordon, 2006), inflexible classroom sizes and rigid workload planning policies. Institutional change might need to precede any pedagogical change (Gendron, 2004), but in the meantime it is arguably a prerequisite of enterprise educators to be entrepreneurial themselves (Beresford, 2010), and to engage as agents of change. Enterprise educators may often (need to) be ‘champions’ (Beresford and Beresford, 2010: 278), but Gibb’s (2011: 149) description of enterprise educators as needing to defend the entrepreneurial concept within the idea of the university amongst ‘dubious and hostile colleagues’ illustrates this potential isolation.

Enterprise educators need opportunities to develop and reflect individually and collectively on practice (Jones et al., 2014) and to learn from and with other practitioners experiencing similar challenges. Networks and CoPs potentially offer such opportunities.

Networks and communities of practice

Although emerging from different traditions and strands of academic thinking, there are common elements between networks and CoPs. Both emphasize participation as a mechanism for developing one’s identity and practice, and both are varied in their formality, breadth and duration.

Networks and enterprise

The role that networks and networking play in the entrepreneurial process has been acknowledged for some time (e.g. Birley, 1985; Pittaway et al., 2010). For example, research on networks in the more general enterprise context identifies that entrepreneurs are likely to be embedded in social networks (Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986) through which they access a range of resources such as information and support. Networks foster innovation by providing opportunities for members to connect with others outside their organizations and/or contexts (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973). However, there is little research exploring the role of networks in relation to enterprise educators (Beresford and Beresford, 2010). This is an omission, given the general lack of opportunities for enterprise educators to access training and development and share the good practice developed elsewhere.

Current international enterprise education networks appear to be varied and scarce, as indicated by calls for their development by the UN’s Entrepreneurship Policy Framework and Implementation Guide (UNCTAD, 2012) and the Danish government (FOU, 2015). Their scope is also arguably limited: the UN review of international best practice in supporting entrepreneurship educators highlights only formal training programmes or one-off events/conferences (UNCTAD, 2012) but overlooks informal networks; the China–UK Entrepreneurship Educators Network is limited to a select number of higher education institutions. Within-country networks, such as the Finnish YES (see www.ee-hub.eu) and the Macedonia National Centre for Development of Innovation and Entrepreneurial Learning (NCDIEL, 2014), are predominantly government-led, established with time-limited funding and offering formal teacher training programmes. The European Entrepreneurship Education Network (EE-HUB), set up as a consortium with 3 years of funding, promotes ‘best practice’, and its membership of ‘experts’ are recruited ‘by invitation’ (www.ee-hub.eu). The TE3 project in the United Kingdom (supporting collaborative networking between universities developing technology in enterprise education) involved 12 institutions formally funded for 3 years (see Carey et al., 2009).

The extent to which such networks support professional enterprise educator development and the sustainability of innovation in practice is not clear. CoP concepts shine new light on this question.

CoPs and innovation

Wenger (1998) argues that a CoP is not just a community of interest but can also be seen as a group of practitioners discussing, learning and sharing resources, experiences, ideas and tools. The focus within a CoP is on shared ‘practice’ rather than on being a member of a formally constituted ‘community’. CoPs have – like networks – been associated with innovation (Brown and Duguid, 1996) and with places where workers ‘problem-solve’, develop ‘non-canonical’ or ‘context-independent’ practice and represent ‘rule-makers’ rather than ‘rule followers’ (Solomon, 2007). CoP concepts arguably shed light on the life of professional enterprise educators: practitioners engaging in non-traditional pedagogy and often working against institutional norms, innovating and developing practice.

Carey et al. (2009) associated collaborative working between enterprise educators in the TE3 project with positive features of the CoP, including an individual sense of community, knowledge transfer, creativity and extended networks. The conclusions in that study regarding institutional impact and sustainability beyond the project were less definitive.

Professional identity

A key element in a CoP is that it constitutes a physical or symbolic space where members can develop their personal professional identity and a sense of ‘belonging’ (Wenger, 1998), realized through participation in common, shared and often co-developed problem-solving and practice. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of ‘peripheral participation’ conceptualizes ‘new-comers’ interacting with ‘old-timers’ and becoming members through practice. For enterprise educators who may feel isolated and at the margins (e.g. of well-established education communities in their sector or institution), a CoP in the form of a professional network may offer important support: a liminal space for development of identity as an enterprise educator as well as for innovation in practice.

Peripheral participation and ‘associations’

Wenger’s suggestion that a CoP might be called a ‘learning network’ is useful: the strength of such communities is when they span different organizations. Thus ‘associations’ (or professional networks) might be an example of CoPs where ‘peer-to-peer learning is complementary’ (Wenger, 2006: 5). However, members may be ‘often restless and their allegiance fragile’ (Wenger, 2006: 5).

For our context, the idea that someone can have ‘multiple roles’ (James, 2007) and be a member of multiple CoPs, reflecting an understanding that there are probably overlapping and nested CoPs (Tight, 2004), offers a useful perspective on the reality of enterprise educators: practitioners from different disciplines, roles and institutions (higher and further education, etc.) engaging in the practice of enterprise education may embody a meaningful CoP. Further, the notion of peripheral participation highlights the value of partial membership and porous community boundaries. This perspective challenges the view that diversity in – and transience of – stakeholder and practice in enterprise education is problematic (Smith and Paton, 2014).

Sustainability in innovation

Perhaps linked to the issue of fragile membership, innovation through CoPs is deemed to arise from the informal, evolving nature of the shared, co-developed practice: ‘through their constant adapting to changing membership and changing circumstances, evolving CoPs are significant sites of innovating’ (Brown and Duguid, 1996: 60). Indeed, sustainability in the innovation of practice in enterprise education may be typified or even enhanced by fluctuating and evolving practice and membership.

The relationship between CoPs and entrepreneurship has received limited attention to date (Cope, 2005; Theodorakopoulos, 2015; Warren, 2004). When viewed through a CoP lens, current expert-led networks offering top-down support through formal training programmes are arguably more likely to result in transactional engagement and reductivist rather than co-created practice.

Drawing on notions of CoPs, the next section evaluates the role that one well-established UK network plays in the professional development and support of enterprise educators and enterprise education practice.

Enterprise Educators UK

EEUK is the United Kingdom’s national membership network for enterprise and entrepreneurship educators working in higher and further education. The 100+ members are organizations rather than individuals and almost all are higher education or further education institutions. EEUK is a not-for-profit company led by a board of directors voted into office by representatives of the membership organizations.

EEUK exists to support educators who develop and deliver enterprise and entrepreneurship education within the curriculum or in extracurricular activities. Support is provided through activities that enable members to share practice, thereby learning from each other. One of the key offers is an annual programme of Best Practice events, hosted by members themselves. Other support comes in a variety of forms and highlights EEUK’s breadth of engagement in wider agenda: it lobbies the UK government and contributes to government committees in order to influence policy; it raises awareness of its members’ activities and impact; it awards funds for small enterprise research projects; it celebrates and rewards individual educators’ achievements through the annual National Enterprise Educator Awards (with the National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education, NCEE); and it runs a substantial annual conference (also with NCEE) known as the International Entrepreneurship Educators Conference. EEUK facilitates a vibrant network of educators who meet at Best Practice events, at the conference and through social media such as Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook.

Outlining the evolution of EEUK is important for understanding this network’s membership, structure and practice. The origins of the company lie in the Science Enterprise Challenge initiative funded originally in 1999 and again in 2001 by the UK Department for Trade and Industry. The aim of the Science Enterprise Challenge was to establish a network of university-based centres of excellence in the development of commercialization and entrepreneurship skills in science and technology.

By 2001, there were 13 Science Enterprise Centres’ (SECs), each leading a consortia of regional universities. In total, through a ‘hub and spoke’ model, 52 universities were involved in regional networks. The potential value of a national network was identified and UK Science Enterprise Centres (UKSEC) was created by the 13 Centre Directors, with each Centre contributing fees to enable UKSEC to operate. A full-time Knowledge Manager was appointed, for whom a key task was to initiate a programme of Best Practice events. The events were run in partnership with and hosted by each SEC in turn. This approach to partnership delivery enabled UKSEC to secure enough in-kind support to increase the scale of its activity beyond what would have been possible with its own limited resources.

By 2004, the enterprise landscape was changing, and UKSEC adapted in order to continue to be effective and valued. SEC funding ended in that year. That, and the importance of enterprise and entrepreneurship skills in disciplines other than science, influenced a change of focus. Universities extended their enterprise and entrepreneurship education into new discipline areas and beyond the curriculum into activities such as student enterprise clubs and societies. UKSEC, with its links through consortia membership to many of the newer and less research-intensive universities, responded to the shift in focus by including Best Practice events that had no science and technology focus. These events proved popular amongst institutions with no prior links with the SEC consortia. At the same time, UKSEC was facing a sustainability challenge: the SECs had been sufficiently funded and could afford relatively high fees, but the second round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF2) funding was, at an institutional level, less generous and was split over a broad range of enterprise and knowledge transfer activities. UKSEC became a membership-based organization with institutional-level membership enabling all staff of a member institution to access membership benefits and discounts.

In 2005, every higher education institution in the United Kingdom became eligible to join and, between 2005 and 2007, the membership grew from 13 Science Enterprise Centres to over 90 individual universities representing approximately 600 enterprise and entrepreneurship educators and practitioners. In 2007, associate membership was offered to further education colleges. When UKSEC became EEUK, further education colleges were offered full and equal membership in 2011. The associate model also envisaged the possibility of an international dimension to the network.

In summary, from its origin of 13 Science Enterprise Centres in 1999, EEUK grew to a membership of over 100 institutions in 2015. Through membership and partnership strategies that have been a key feature of UKSEC/EEUK, the network has achieved sustainability and continues to provide a Best Practice event series as a staple and important element of the membership offer. The next section introduces and justifies the methodology adopted for the current study.

Methodology

The study draws on a case-based method focusing on a single organizational network – EEUK. In doing so, it builds on an earlier study of this network (Beresford and Beresford, 2010) but extends analysis to cover an entire decade of UKSEC and subsequently EEUK activity.

The case method has been deemed especially appropriate when exploring new entrepreneurial topics or novel examples, particularly in instances for which existing theory seems inadequate (e.g. Bagnoli and Megali, 2011). Focused ‘on understanding the dynamics present within single settings’ (Eisenhardt, 1989: 534), context forms an integral part of the study (Yin, 2009). Our case study aim is to enable better understanding of the dynamics present in the single setting of a network within the complex and uncertain context of UK enterprise education.

Documentary evidence is drawn from data on 65 Best Practice events between October 2005 and June 2015. The data set comprises the information collected at application and registration for each event by one of the authors, then working for EEUK. As such, it provides a complete data set representing the event-related activity of the EEUK membership of over 100 organizations and an even greater number of individuals. Whilst this approach provides only baseline data, such as a delegate’s name, institution and event, the historical data enable longitudinal analysis of trends over time. This perspective has been neglected in entrepreneurship studies, which instead tend to focus on individual-level perspectives and experiences.

The data includes:

the number of events over the period;

event attendance by individual participants over the period;

event attendance by institutions over the period;

event host by institution; and

event theme.

Using event data is novel, since network research tends to focus rather on individuals. The article analyses engagement in – and the focus of – 65 enterprise education Best Practice events delivered through EEUK, drawing on social-constructivist concepts of networks and CoPs including: engagement, exchanging and sharing; the co-development of practice; the dynamic of peripheral participation; and sustainability in innovation through ongoing development and evolution in practice, ideas and members. Missing data in relation to these themes are also considered.

The next section presents data on these events.

Findings

Key findings

Data are presented and analysed for the entire 10-year period and in two 5-year periods, allowing for trends in terms of average attendance and themes to be compared.

The key analysis, as shown in Table 1, is as follows:

over the decade, 65 Best Practice events were organized by or in partnership with EEUK (and its predecessor UKSEC);

2054 delegates attended these events;

45 institutions (excluding non-UK ones) hosted an event, including institutions in England, Scotland and Wales – one institution (the University of Sheffield) hosted 6 events; and

a wide range of topics and themes were explored, ranging from university incubation to social enterprise and from student assessment to student finance.

Table 1.

Best Practice events, October 2005–June 2015.

Date	Event theme	Venue/host	No. of participants	No. of participant institutions
24/06/15	Developing the Entrepreneurial Potential of Post Graduate and Early Career Researchers	University of Southampton	37	17
11/06/15	Use of Technology for Ent-Ed (MOOCs, flipping classroom, social media, etc.)	Edinburgh Napier University	35	16
20/05/15	Effecting Cultural Change: Towards Enterprising Institutions	University of Sheffield	33	19
30/04/15	Stepping Back to Go Forward: Listening to Alumni Voices	University of Wales Trinity Saint David	23	12
15/04/15	Use of Technology for Ent-Ed (MOOCs, flipping classroom, social media, etc.)	Kingston University	38	22
12/02/15	Embedding Enterprise Education Within Non-Business Curriculum Areas	London South Bank University	54	30
20/01/15	Co-Creating Enterprise Education with Entrepreneurs and Enterprising Organizations: A Holy Grail?	Anglia Ruskin University	29	17
21/11/14	Funding of Student and Graduate Ventures, Including Crowdfunding	University of Sunderland	23	16
29/10/14	International Comparisons for Measuring the Impact of Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education	University College London	42	31
12/06/14	Insight and Inspiration Roadshow	London Metropolitan University	34	27
03/06/14	Supporting Student and Graduate Entrepreneurs: Business Incubation in the University Context (with UKBI)	Nottingham Trent University	69	44
14/05/14	Supporting Self-Made Careers (with AGCAS)	University of Bristol	46	35
08/05/14	Entrepreneurial Learning Journeys, Innovative Partnerships: Altogether Brilliant	Glyndwr University	27	11
26/03/14	The Embedded Enterprise Exchange: Examples from Across the Subject Spectrum	Cardiff University	50	23
04/02/14	Sustaining Innovation & Enterprise in HE: The Future Coexistence of Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Management & Enterprise Education (with the IKT)	York St John University	43	22
22/01/14	Digital Storytelling for Enterprise Educators	Birmingham City University	27	15
04/12/13	Social Innovation: How Social Enterprise and Innovation Can Drive Social Change	University of South Wales	45	19
27/11/13	Venture Funds for University Entrepreneurs	University College London	42	30
11/06/13	Working with Others: Taking Enterprise Learning Outside the University Through Local Partnership Building	Northumbria University	38	13
04/06/13	Third Mission? University–External Relationship Doctoral Day	University of Huddersfield	No data – ISBE event for which EEUK was a partner
04/06/13	Best Practice for Commercialization of Student Ideas Workshop	London – location organized by Find Invest Grow (FIG)	No data – FIG event for which EEUK was a partner
14/05/13	Enterprise Education Symposium: Local, National and International Reflections on Strategy, Practice and Impact	Glasgow Caledonian University	No data – GCU’s own event for which EEUK was a partner
23/04/13	The Role of Business Competitions, Challenges and Simulations for Nurturing Graduate Entrepreneurs	Canterbury Christ Church University	52	26
08/04/13	‘Future Fit’ Graduates – Survival Skills	Bath Spa University	36	23
21/03/13	Enterprise Education for Postgraduates – Developing Enterprising Researchers	University of Manchester	33	25
14/02/13	Assessment of Learning in Curricular and Extra-Curricular Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education	Southampton Solent University	35	20
05/12/12	‘Future Fit’ Graduates – Are We Preparing Our Students for What Employers Are Really Looking For?	University of Hull	36	22
30/10/12	Crossing the Bridge: The Application of Creative Thinking and Action to Entrepreneurial Education	University of Edinburgh	33	21
26/10/12	Social Media and Enterprise Education	University of Surrey	38	25
31/05/12	Postgraduate Enterprise Education	Loughborough University	23	18
09/02/12	Sustainable Graduate Ventures	Teesside University	24	11
25/01/12	Sustainable Graduate Ventures	University of Coventry	18	9
08/12/11	e-Learning for Interdisciplinary Ent Ed	University of Sheffield	26	11
01/06/11	Enterprise Conference	Glyndwr University	No data – Glyndwr event for which EEUK was a partner
18/05/11	Creative Enterprise	Birmingham City University	63	38
11/04/11	Fostering the Spirit of Enterprise Through Cross-Campus Practitioner-Led Courses	University of Cambridge	27	15
19/05/10	Postgraduate Enterprise	University of Birmingham	11	10
14/04/10	Tracking Enterprising Students	University of Sheffield	14	12
31/03/10	Oven-Ready Students	University of Central Lancashire	9	8
23/02/10	Enterprise for Education – Promoting Benefits to Academic Staff	University of Wolverhampton	59
23/3/10	Social Enterprise	Southampton Solent University	95	53
9/12/09	Incubation and Incubators in Universities	Nottingham Trent University	28	23
18/2/09	Techniques to Engage Students – Case Studies on Successful Pedagogies and Promotions of Enterprise Programmes	Liverpool University	17	12
22/1/09	Embedding Enterprise	Queens University Belfast	20	13
25/11/08	Assessment Revisited: Assessment of Student Learning of Enterprise and Entrepreneurship in Context	University of Sheffield	12	12
16/07/08	TE3 Open Day	Birmingham City University	52	40
18/06/08	Engaging Students with Enterprise Education Initiatives – Use of Branding and Identity	Leeds Metropolitan University	26	20
11/06/08	Assessment of Student Learning for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Modules and Courses	Salford University	31	12
22/05/08	Entrepreneurial Learning Research Event	Open University	21	16
08/04/08	Business Plan Competitions – Purpose and Practice	Durham University	28	25
12/03/08	Creative Enterprise Conference	Birmingham City University	70	40
01/02/08	Make It Theirs – Using Branding to Make Enterprise Education Relevant to Students	Royal College of Art	51	40
27/11/07	Science, Technology and Enterprise	Sheffield University	26	11
03/07/07	TE3 Open Day	Staffordshire University	80
17/04/07	Transforming Enterprise Education – Real Practice	Leeds Metropolitan Enterprise Zone	46	19
27/03/07	What Do Students Get From Entrepreneurship Modules – 3-day workshop	Cambridge University	25	21
28/02/07	Enterprise Education for Arts and Humanities Students	Loughborough University	15	10
13/11/06	North America/UK Exchange	Manchester Science Enterprise Centre	38	12
05/09/06	The EHGI Programme on Assessment	Cambridge University	21	16
08/06/06	Social Enterprise – Philanthropy or Common Sense	Warwick University	36	No data
16/05/06	Enterprise in Context	Oxford University	No delegate info
03/04/06	Joint Cambridge, MIT and UKSEC 2-day event	Cambridge University	28	21
23/03/06	The Organization of Frequent Events	London Business School	No delegate info
31/01/06	North American/UK Exchange	Boston	16	15
14/10/05	White Rose Enterprise Learning Conference	Sheffield University	No delegate info
Total			782

Note: UKSEC: UK Science Enterprise Centres; EEUK: Enterprise Educators UK.

Event engagement

Where there are consistent data, it is possible to look at event popularity and reach. Individual events attracted from 10 to over 90 individual delegates and over 50 different institutions. Events are becoming more popular in terms of the number of delegates attending, albeit that event reach (the number of different institutions represented at any particular event) is slightly lower. In the first 5-year period (2005–2010), an average of 30 delegates attended a Best Practice event, drawing delegates from an average of 22 different institutions. In the second 5-year period (2010–2015), the average number of delegates attending an event was 36, drawing delegates from an average of 20 different institutions.

Detailed analysis of the delegate list (not shown in Table 1) provides further baseline information on the depth and breadth of delegate engagement with Best Practice events. Delegates came from all but 8 of the United Kingdom’s 126 universities. Events attracted delegates from further education colleges (eligible for membership since 2007), albeit a small number compared to those from higher education institutions. Events have also attracted delegates from non-UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and other stakeholders, including the National Association of College and University Entrepreneurs (NACUE), the National Endowment for Science Technology and Arts (NESTA), the Institute of Directors (IoD), the Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative (SFEDI) and UnLtd. The data show that 58% of delegates attended a single event, with 8% attending two and 1% five or more.

Event themes

Changes in event theme provide insight into shifts in enterprise and entrepreneurship education in the United Kingdom over the course of the decade. This analysis shows that a consistent theme is a commitment to exploring ways to embed enterprise beyond business and across the wider curriculum (e.g. see, in Table 1, event dates 02/07, 04/11, 03/13, 03/14 and 02/15). Another consistent theme across the decade is a focus on ways to measure the impact of enterprise and entrepreneurship education (e.g. see event dates 03/07, 04/10, 05/13, 10/14 and 04/15). Both the embedding of enterprise in the wider curriculum and the measurement of impact are significant challenges to sustainability. Further, longitudinal analysis allows us to chart notable changes, which can be seen to occur in the later period when there is a greater focus on technological enhancement of enterprise education (e.g. see event dates 03/10, 01/10, 01/12, 12/12, 04/13 and 06/14). Further still, we see developments in later events that show new exploration of the issue of employability of both students and staff (e.g. see event dates 12/11, 01/12, 01/14, 04/15 and 06/15).

Discussion

Our analysis suggests that EEUK is far more than a ‘training’ organization. It is better viewed as a member-driven network forming part of the United Kingdom’s ecosystem of enterprise educators and development of their practice. Viewed through network and CoPs concepts, an analysis of event engagement and event topics over the decade shows that EEUK has played a positive role in educators’ personal development, identity validation, development and innovation in practice and, ultimately, sustainability through educator ownership of the domain. These points are developed in the following sections.

Event engagement: Participation, personal development and identity validation

The evidence suggests that EEUK Best Practice events play a significant role in supporting development of UK enterprise educators and entrepreneurship education. EEUK functions as a networked forum, and event popularity is increasing steadily, indicating consistent demand.

The slight decrease in institutional reach between the periods 2005–2010 and 2010–2015 can be explained by the role UKSEC played in the earlier period (with each individual SEC, acting as a hub institution leading a regional consortium that acted as a mini-network) and also by the more generous funding SECs received, which included travel expenses.

More than half of the delegates attended just a single event. Low ‘repeat’ attendance might seem disappointing. However, from a CoP perspective, the range rather than the depth of attendance ‘reach’ can be more positively interpreted as demonstrating an active extended network, as suggested by notions of ‘multiple’, ‘overlapping’ or ‘nested’ CoPs (Tight, 2004). Granovetter’s (1973) conceptualization of the importance of weak ties also supports a more positive view. Whilst the current study is limited to evaluating event data of attendance and theme, these data provide indicators of an ‘extended periphery’ of participation and further evidence of porous boundaries. Two examples are the attendance by delegates from NACUE, IoD, SFEDI and NESTA, and the overlap for two events with the activity and members of the TE3 project. Further research is important to explore anecdotal data from EEUK which suggest that interactions from people who attended the events were subsequently happening between and across institutions. The above establishes EEUK as a forum that draws educators into a network with a wider and porous boundary, enabling a continuation of exchange and shared practice that no longer depends on continued event attendance. This is suggestive of ongoing practice development.

Disciplinary and institutional analysis of the data further supports a positive interpretation. Whilst the network’s original focus on commercialization and entrepreneurship skills in the field of science and technology has shifted over time, Table 1 shows that this has not led to a reversion to a business school-centric focus, maintaining instead a commitment to institutional embeddedness and helping the domain to gain legitimacy amongst practitioners across areas outside the business school (Henry, 2013; Jones et al., 2014). The fact that practitioners from non-business academic areas are choosing to engage with EEUK is an important indicator of the porous nature of the CoP and that these events provide an important role in validating the identity of enterprise educators.

Of the 2054 delegates who attended an EEUK Best Practice event, a significant minority came from a wide range of other non-HEI stakeholders. This arguably meets UNCTAD calls for sharing across educational systems. Business and policy entities have also attended (e.g. NESTA, IoD). Co-creation is evident in Table 1, but perhaps more could be done in this regard, for example, between educators and learners.

As part of enterprise educator practice, an emergent CoP is suggested by the volume and growth in event participation and, importantly, by the sharing, problem-solving and discussion-based activities that take place at these events. This insight is supported if we take into account the member-driven rather than top-down prescribed nature of the events themselves, indicated by the increasing range of different institutions choosing to play host to the events. Event theme is discussed in the next section, but it is important to note here the popularity (attendance numbers) at technology-related and specifically TE3 events (16/07/08 and 03/07/07). The TE3 project itself embodies CoP concepts of collaborative cross-institutional working, and this supports the notion of an extended community of practitioners.

Event theme: Domain ownership and sustained development and innovation in practice

Event theme is determined by active member participation, which means that events are demand-led, whilst also ensuring that EEUK remains both focused and relevant. The demand-led nature of event themes typifies CoP behaviour: practitioners developing the focus of events (event practice) rather than being prescribed to (by institutional managers or funding bodies). Active practitioner commitment and participation in this process also demonstrate one of the ways in which practitioners are assuming responsibility for leadership of the domain.

Event theme data provide evidence of some of the practical ways in which educators themselves are looking to address their challenges. The period 2010–2015 shows a much greater focus on the use of technology and simulations, which expose learners to greater levels of risk and uncertainty but within supportive environments (Rolfe, 2010). Whilst simulations may not provide ‘real’ entrepreneurial learning opportunities (Beresford and Michels, 2016), they are evidence of practitioners looking to develop their practice – here facilitating greater levels of learner autonomy (van Geldred, 2010) and possibly, given the economies offered by technology, doing more with less (Henry, 2013).

Event theme serves to maintain innovation in terms of the diversity of practices that characterize enterprise education, whilst also uniting the domain (Jones et al., 2014) within a CoP. It is notable that only a limited number of events focused on business planning. Equally notable is the number of events focusing on employability, of both students and staff. These two observations possibly highlight how UK enterprise educators adopt the broad focus on entrepreneurialism within a wide range of employment contexts and, to a degree, challenge evaluations that identify business planning as the predominant assessment practice in the United Kingdom and the United States (Pittaway and Edwards, 2012). A continued interest in impact measurement suggests that any conservatism in the approach to assessment is not due to any unwillingness or lack of interest amongst educators to engage with more innovative practices. Shifts in EEUK event themes – towards incorporating technology and employability – demonstrate the adapting, developing and innovating features associated with a CoP as an ‘enacting organization’ having the ‘capability of reconceiving its environment and its identity’ (Brown and Duguid, 1996: 175). This and the changing membership over the decade from science-based academia to include further education and non-education parties also demonstrate sustainability.

Conclusion

This article has explored the key role that member-driven networks play in facilitating the sustainable professional development of enterprise educators in the United Kingdom through a critical review of Best Practice events organized by a national network, EEUK, between 2005 and 2015. We have argued that the diversity of practitioners and their practice is being positively leveraged through a member-driven network, which acts as an oasis in the precarious context of faddish practice and funding uncertainty. We further argue that innovation and sustainability in enterprise and entrepreneurship education can be achieved through a member-driven practice-oriented network that assumes responsibility for leadership of the domain. The evidence presented shows that in the United Kingdom, EEUK has played and continues to play a leading role in this regard, providing opportunities for ongoing professional development and a forum through which diverse practitioners can and do find identity validation which shapes the nature and direction of enterprise and entrepreneurship education over time.

Innovation and sustainability

Conceptually, the article supports and extends current notions of CoPs as linked to innovation. The data on EEUK event themes over the decade present a picture of an evolving, innovative enterprise education sector. As such, the findings support the positive aspects of a CoP as comprising a group of practitioners problem-solving, sharing information and skills, evolving, adapting and innovating practice. Event themes show members developing practice in cross-disciplinarity, technology and employability. They also show continued commitment to personal development and institutional embeddedness that link positively to sustainability. The present study paves the way for important future exploration of innovative practices and institutional embedding by members engaging in the events.

Supporting professional identity and ownership

The link between a CoP and professional identity is underlined: case evidence showing the sustained popularity of Best Practice events supports the role of EEUK in engaging enterprise educators. The increasing ‘reach’, in terms of attendees over the decade, shows the value isolated educators perceive in such a member-driven network in relation to their professional development. The member-driven nature of the events in terms of hosting and topic and the commitment to themes of professional development and embeddedness demonstrate ownership of the domain, as well as highlighting the challenges experienced by the enterprise educator practitioner who finds identity by participating in the EEUK events.

A new extended periphery for enterprise educators

The case analysis of events and member engagement extends notions of ‘periphery’, ‘overlapping’ CoPs and ‘associations’. Lack of repeat attendance does not necessarily mean ‘fragility’ in membership: as discussed above, there was peer sharing and development of practice between and across institutions after the events had occurred. Fuller exploration and evidencing of the nature of this aspect in future studies will be important. Evolving member diversity (cross-disciplinary, including both higher and further education) does not mean fluctuation or faddishness. Indeed, attendance by delegates who are not educators (e.g. IoD, NESTA, etc.) and larger attendance at TE3-related events suggests not only positive overlapping communities but is evidence that EEUK events are responding to and influencing the changing discourse and practice in the wider enterprise education sector. EEUK appears to offer a new understanding of participation and a new form of periphery that seem to support enterprise educators taking ownership of the domain and innovation in enterprise education practice.

Policy and practice

On the limited basis of one network activity – the organization of practice events – EEUK, as a member-driven and constantly adapting network, is central to the enterprise educator CoP, and therefore to any attempts to sustain enterprise and entrepreneurship education in the United Kingdom. The enduring, organic and practice-based nature of the network is identified as important and unique in comparison to enterprise education networks that are more top-down, are dependent on funding, at times have exclusive membership criteria, and offer formal training programmes or one-off events/conferences. For innovation and sustainability, there are implications in the findings of this study for the nature of enterprise network constitutions, membership criteria and focus.

Given a distinction between co-creation and top-down practice development, allowing practitioner members to shape network activities seems important. Brown and Duguid (1996) assert that leadership of an innovating CoP should detect and support practice, not create and design it.

Institutional membership that allows individuals from all roles and levels to engage facilitates inclusivity. Increasing reach in terms of the types of delegate attending EEUK events alongside its inclusive membership criteria (regarding type of institution, discipline and role) has a positive impact on its potential domain-wide reach. Embracing students and international networks would leverage more fully the notion of co-creation and overlapping and nested CoPs. EEUK’s affiliate model was designed in 2012 to enable this.

Overall, this research supports EEUK’s current strategic focus on the diversity of member recruitment, and its aim to do more to understand the nature of members’ roles and practice.

Research and future focus

Events have proved a valuable new type of data source and this is in itself a pointer for future research. Case evidence from EEUK in terms of event popularity and themes highlights specific areas for future investigation.

The continued commitment in EEUK’s event themes to personal development and institutional embeddedness highlights the challenge experienced by the enterprise educator practitioner who finds identity by participating in such events. Two caveats with future implications are suggested below.

First, the data suggest that more could be done to engage practitioners in further education – or at least to leverage opportunities for practice by further education colleagues to be incorporated into the evolution of practice in the sector. This would more fully realize the opportunities provided by overlapping CoPs and calls for networks across different educational levels (FOU, 2015; UNCTAD, 2012). Second, the degree to which Best Practice events support institutional embeddedness could be further investigated by fuller analysis of delegate data (not possible at this time), identifying delegates by subject, discipline or institutional role. Specifically, in relation to sustainability and professional development, future EEUK research into members’ roles and practice beyond event attendance and topics would provide greater certainty for any subsequent claims.

If members are engaging in practice, there is value in their practice being shared to contribute to the evolution of the (community of) practice. The potential to make any peer sharing and development of practice taking place between and across institutions more explicitly part of enterprise educator personal development is reflected in EEUK’s current move to support more research into and by its members and to disseminate this work. Such research should also contribute further to CoP and network theories.

In conclusion, our research suggests the importance for ongoing enterprise educator professional development and innovation of: member-driven networks that are broad and inclusive in their membership criteria; networks that facilitate the co-development of practice by network members; greater understanding of member practice and participation beyond formal network events. A focus on such factors will help to shape the nature of the enterprise educator CoP network and its role in the support of sustainability and innovation in enterprise education.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Enterprise Educators UK (EEUK) for allowing access to and use of data and data analysis in relation to the EEUK’s Best Practice event series of the past 10 years.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aldrich

Zimmer

(1986) Entrepreneurship through social networks. In: Sexton

Smilor

(eds), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Baliinger, pp. 3–23.

Bagnoli

Megali

(2011) Measuring performance in social enterprises. Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40(1): 149–165.

Beresford

(2010) The role of networks in supporting grassroots good practice in enterprise education. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 15(3): 275–288.

Beresford

(2010) You the Entrepreneurial Role Model. Enterprise Network Update. London: Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, p. 2.

Beresford

Michels

(2016) To what extent can live projects contribute to creating entrepreneurial learning environments. Brookes Journal of Learning and Teaching 8(1–2). (online journal). http://hejlt.org/article/to-what-extent-can-live-projects-contribute-to-creating-entrepreneurial-learning-environments-a-critical-evaluation-of-the-mba-enterprise-elective/

Bird

(2002) Learning entrepreneurship competencies: the self-directed learning approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 1: 203–227.

Birley

(1985) The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing 1(1): 107–117.

Brown

Duguid

(1996) Organisational learning and communities of practice. In: Cohen

Sproull

(eds), Organisational Learning. London: Sage, pp. 58–82.

Burt

(1992) The social structure of competition. In: Nohria

Eccles

(eds), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 57–91.

10.

Business Innovation and Skills (2013) Enterprise education impact in higher education and further education final report. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/208715/bis-13-904-enterprise-education-impact-in-higher-education-and-further-education.pdf (accessed 19 March 2015).

11.

Carey

Smith

Martin

(2009) Cross-university enterprise education collaboration as a community of practice. Education and Training 51(8/9): 696–706.

12.

Cope

(2005) Towards a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 29: 373–398.

13.

Eisenhardt

(1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532–550.

14.

EEUK (2015) Best practice events application and registration data. Enterprise Educators UK. Available at: www.enterprise.ac.uk (accessed 3 May 2016).

15.

European Commission (2012) Effects and impact of entrepreneurship programmes in HE. Entrepreneurship Unit, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, Brussels. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/files/education/effects_impact_high_edu_final_report_en.pdf (accessed 21 June 2015).

16.

FOU (2015) EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region: entrepreneurship in education, February 2015, Danish ministry of education. Available at: www.fou.emu.dk (accessed 9 December 2016).

17.

Gendron

(2004) Practitioners’ perspectives on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning and Education 3(3): 302–314.

18.

Gibb

(2005) Towards the entrepreneurial university. Entrepreneurship education as a lever for change. A Policy Paper for the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE), UK.

19.

Gibb

(2011) Concepts into practice: the case of the international entrepreneurship educators programme (IEEP). International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 17(2): 144–165.

20.

Gordon

(2006) Welcoming confusion, embracing uncertainty. Paideusis 15(2): 15–25.

21.

Granovetter

(1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360–1380.

22.

Henry

(2013) Entrepreneurship education in HE: Are policy makers expecting too much? Education and Training 55(8/9): 836–848.

23.

Henry

Hill

Leitch

(2003) Developing a coherent enterprise support policy: a new challenge for governments. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 21(1): 3–19.

24.

Higgins

Smith

Mirza

(2013) Reflexive approaches to entrepreneurial learning and practice. The Journal of Entrepreneurship 22(2): 135–160.

25.

James

(2007) The learning trajectories of ‘old-timers’. In: Highes J, Jewson

Unwin

(eds), Communities of Practice: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 131–143.

26.

Jones

Matlay

Penaluna

. (2014) Claiming the future of enterprise education. Education and Training 56(8/9): 764–775.

27.

Klapper

Farber

(2016) In Alain Gibb’s footsteps: evaluating alternative approaches to sustainable enterprise education. International Journal of Management Education 14: 422–439.

28.

Kyro

(2006) A theoretical framework for teaching and learning entrepreneurship. In: EFMD 36th EISB Conference, Southampton, UK, 6–8 September 2006, p. 13.

29.

Lave

Wenger

(1991) Situated Learning Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Loyens

SMM

Magda

Rikers

RMJP

(2008) Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationship with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review 20: 411–427.

31.

NCDIEL (2014) Macedonia entrepreneurial learning strategy. Macedonia National Centre for Development of Innovation and Entrepreneurial Learning. Available at: http://ncdiel.mk/mk/ (accessed 9 December 2016).

32.

Neck

Greene

Brush

(2014) Teaching Entrepreneurship. A practice-Based Approach. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

33.

Pittaway

Rodriguez-Falcon

Aijegbayo

. (2010) The role of entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning. International Small Business Journal 29(1): 37–57.

34.

Pittaway

Edwards

(2012) Assessment: examining practice in entrepreneurship education. Education and Training 54(8/9): 778–800.

35.

Rae

Martin

Antcliff

. (2012) Enterprise and entrepreneurship in English higher education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 19(3): 380–401.

36.

Rolfe

(2010) Learning to Take Risks: Learning to Succeed. Victoria Embankment: National Endowment of Science Technology and Arts NESTA.

37.

Smith

AMJ

Paton

(2014) Embedding enterprise education. International Journal of Management Education 12: 550–560.

38.

Solomon

(2007) Not belonging? What makes a functional learner identity in undergraduate mathematics? Studies in Higher Education 32(1): 79–96.

39.

Theodorakopoulos

(2015) Communities of practice. Enterprise Matters e-Magazine. Available at: http://www.isbe.org.uk/EMCoPs (accessed 29 June 2015)

40.

Tight

(2004) Research into higher education: An a-theoretical community of practice? Higher Education Research and Development 23(4): 395–411.

41.

UNCTAD (2012) The 2012 entrepreneurship policy framework implementation guidance. UNCTAD. Available at: http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaeed2012d1_en.pdf (accessed 9 December 2106).

42.

Van Geldred

(2010) Autonomy as the guiding aim of entrepreneurship education. Education and Training 52(8/9): 710–721.

43.

Warren

(2004) Negotiating entrepreneurial identity – communities of practice and changing discourse. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 5(1): 25–35.

44.

Wenger

(1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

45.

Wenger

(2006) Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction. Available at: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm (accessed 30 July 2010).

46.

World Economic Forum (WEF). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: a report to the Global Education Initiative. Available at: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GEI/2009/Entrepreneurship_Education_Report.pdf (accessed 12 September 2010).

47.

Young

(2014) Enterprise for all: the relevance of enterprise education. Business Innovation and Skills. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/338749/EnterpriseforAll-lowres-200614.pdf (accessed 12 June 2015).

48.

Yin

(2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.