Three Thoughts after IEEC 2018

I loved the sentiment of Margherita Bacigalupo’s tweet about the Christmas-like excitement that the IEEC conference generates. Unlike Christmas though, there were no dodgy gifts, no awkward family gatherings and definitely no falling asleep in a chair after dinner. Thank you Leeds Becket for hosting, and the team behind IEEC for three brilliant days – here’s three things that I’m still thinking about after #IEEC2018…

  1. Impact measurement; a trip down memory lane….

In entrepreneurship and enterprise education, impact measurement and evaluation is the debate that keeps on giving. So it was with great interest delegates attended Gabi Kaffka and Norris Krueger’s workshop on their new project about the ‘Evaluation of Entrepreneurship Education Programmes in Higher Education Institutions and Centres.’ EEEPHEIC (pronounced ‘epic’), will ‘categorise existing entrepreneurship education programmes as well as their results (impacts)’. You can get involved by completing surveys about your own entrepreneurship education programmes/approaches. At the workshop our table had a discussion about the diversity of entrepreneurship programmes and the difficulty this poses for evaluation. I shared the Realist Evaluation approach, which tries to move the evaluative question along from ‘what works?’ and towards ‘what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why?’ It prioritises recognising the multi-layered complexities of social programmes as a crucial element of its approach. The conversations reminded me of Allan Gibb’s witty and insightful keynote at IEEC 2013. He bounced  off this BIS study which looked at the impact of entrepreneurship education in further and higher education and he highlighted how the evaluation exercise is fraught with difficulties. He likened entrepreneurship education programmes to a supermarket shampoo aisle, where products might be positioned on the same shelf but promise different results: this one will fix split ends, this one will make hair shiny, this one will protect colour.

Allan shampoo

His point was that each bottle has different ingredients, and promises different and incomparable results, as such, one size fits all evaluation is problematic. This issue is one which Realist evaluators recognise, and as a result, they advise that a crucial early step in the evaluation exercise is to surface ‘programme theory’, that is, to make explicit what this particular programme is meant to be doing for participants, and then to test, refute or refine the theory. Or, as Allan asked back in 2013, what are the specific ingredients, processes and hoped for outcomes of this particular product? At the Epic workshop, our table identified that a ‘process’ to undertake such a task (rather than a measurement tool) could be useful. There was also recognition of the importance of context, as Realist Evaluation guru Ray Pawson (2013) says: “All evaluators now understand that what works in Wigan on a wet Wednesday will not necessarily work in Thurso on a thunderous Thursday.” This contextual complexity was something Phil Clegg and I attempted to (vegetable) model when we described how using Realist Evaluation had helped us think about how to innovate and evaluate an Enterprise Placement Year programme at The University of Huddersfield.

Clegg and me

Our goal was to underscore Pawson’s point, that the contextual conditions which influence outcome patterns are infinite. We highlighted four layers – individual, inter-personal, institutional and infra-structural (Pawson, 2006), which interact and contribute to the complexity of the evaluation enterprise. And yes, we aimed to model this with onions, barbecue skewers and sliced courgette. Well, it was a Friday morning slot…

2. Social context

My brain gets snagged on social context; it’s the lens through which I recognise I often look at things. At the Wednesday night welcome reception there was a reminder about how tangible its effects can be when we heard from the founders of the Bloomin Buds Theatre Company, two social entrepreneurs who are ‘challenging the stigma of the class divide through community based theatre’ with support from the University of Leeds’ Spark programme. Their story, of feeling like ’fish out of water’ at university, and then deciding to bring theatre opportunities to students from lower and working class backgrounds stayed with me through the conference. It provided a kind of ‘What would the Bloomin Buds say?’ soundtrack to my internal conversations. The fantastic debate style workshop which asked us to argue if we should ‘Give up on Enterprise’ and focus resources on getting more students to Top 100 companies made me think ‘Which students end up at those companies?’ The thought provoking keynote about China’s rapid expansion of enterprise provision, including the 622,000 teams which took part in enterprise competitions made me ask ‘Who wins? Whose rules? Who gets to judge? Whose playing field?’ Todd Davey’s insights into the future of universities got me wondering what it would be like to ask forty of the students googling ‘university is…killing me’ to find out what they thought, what language they would use, what priorities they would have. Interest in these sorts of questions prompted my application to the social track this year, introducing the Horizon 2020 project I’m working on called Nemesis, which aims to facilitate the co-creation of social innovation projects by multi-stakeholder groups including teachers, students, social innovation practitioners, parents and community members. Nemesis is about developing alternative, social approaches to enterprising and entrepreneurial learning, indeed, in the wake of global financial meltdown, rising inequality, the gig economy and precarious working, the narrative of ‘business as usual’ feels increasingly problematic to maintain. Social innovation is seen as an alternative paradigm, but, just as with mainstream enterprise discourse, the focus can sometimes be on a heroic entrepreneur, or their clever product or service. This obscures an important element which distinguishes social innovation and enterprise – that they are defined by the way they are owned, governed and managed in democratic and participatory ways. One element of Nemesis is looking at how participatory methods help people to co-create and work together, and the workshop I ran took people through a method called OPERA (IEEC delegates at work, in the picture below), which helps all members of a group participate in a decision making or visioning process.

OPERA crop

Every OPERA session starts with a question and schools working on the project have been using it to answer their own questions. It’s a method which, it strikes me now, would be a great way to surface possible answers to a question prompted by Martin Lackeus’ session ‘What is the egg in the hollandaise sauce?’

3. A sea turtle mistaking a plastic bag for a jelly fish

I started a PhD at Sheffield Hallam University last year and have enjoyed, as part of the research degree process, learning about the philosophies of business and management and trying to remember the difference between ontology, epistemology, axiology, and the many different theoretical perspectives which underpin research approaches. It’s the kind of mind boggling learning that feels designed to bring on an existential crisis, in a good way. It’s left me with a more critical appreciation of how philosophies operate subliminally, how we enact teaching and research in sometimes automatic ways, reproducing handed down practices and approaches without questioning their basis. The perennial conversation about measuring and/or evaluating the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes is perhaps, a good example of this. Is a research approach underpinned by a scientific philosophy – to measure and quantify phenomena, potentially through experiments where we aim to observe pre-test and post-test differences on ‘subjects’ and position ourselves as neutral and objective observers. Or is it underpinned by a constructivist philosophy, where we are engaged in a search for meaning, and use qualitative research design to prioritise individual perspectives whilst recognising that researchers are also engaged in a process of interpretation. It might seem a little abstract, but considering the deeper pre-suppositions which underlie practice, research, teaching and learning can shed light on inconsistencies and contradictions, or the illuminate how they might be better aligned. Keynote Martin Lackeus’ thesis on Value Creation as an educational philosophy, is an example of trying to make such an alignment, where theory, practice, experiential learning through value creation and assessment through LoopMe have been carefully thought through.

It is interesting to reflect on the dissonance which may be felt between practice which aims to be student-centred, co-created, relational, social and ethical…. And then when it comes to researching such programmes, our conversations seem to return to an inescapable true north, the orienting point of scientific measurement. Elements of scientific research philosophy have become ingrained in education, for example the Education Endowment Fund utilising only Randomised Control Trails to test educational interventions for lower socio-economic pupils, the framing of experimental methods as the ‘gold standard’ in entrepreneurship education (Rideout and Gray, 2013), and the goal to reduce deeply complex and multi layered social interventions and programmes to an effect size. Perhaps this is not surprising, as Jing Zhang said in her keynote, policy makers often want visible and instant results and the demand is that these results be measurable; but I was reminded of Heidi Neck’s comment last year ‘stepping on the scales won’t tell you how to lose weight.’ Perhaps a step forward would be talking about how all approaches to researching the impact of entrepreneurship education are just that – possible approaches, perspectives, philosophies, rather than taken for granted facts of life. Have a listen to Rob Newman’s brilliant Radio 4 show Total Eclipse of Descartes. He talks about the nature of educational philosophies, starting with a dark and funny metaphor: “The most destructive philosophies I believe are the ones we don’t recognise as philosophies. They damage us most when we mistake them for being how things are, simply natural; like a sea turtle mistaking a plastic bag for a jelly fish: it’s only once they’re inside us the trouble starts.” IEEC is just the place to continue such conversations, and I look forward to next year at Oxford Brookes for IEEC 2019, put the date in your diary.

Four thoughts after IEEC 2016…

Just over a week has passed since the brilliant and thought provoking three days that was IEEC 2016. I’ve really enjoyed reading round-ups and reflections from Gups Jagpal and Dave Jarman about the event.  So, in response to NCEE’s Ceri Nursaw, who encouraged delegates to ‘communicate more’, here’s four initial thoughts prompted by the conference…

  1. ‘The Law According to Hero Entrepreneurs’

Maggie O’Carroll, the opening keynote, had some solid advice for delegates at the start of their conference: pursue diverse opinions; don’t take things at face value; don’t just talk to people like you; seek new knowledge and networks which will challenge and develop your thinking and practice. The phrase that most stuck in my mind most from her talk though, was ‘The Law According to Hero Entrepreneurs.’ That is, Maggie was describing how the field of enterprise and entrepreneurship education somewhat succumbs to being told what to do by successful business people, on the basis that they have been successful themselves. The problem is, their ideas and opinions about what is required for, or fuels, success is informed by their personal experiences and inclinations, rather than a full examination of the evidence and the structural barriers experienced by others, especially those in less fortunate social, financial, cultural and emotional circumstances. Later on, we heard from Kaz Karwowski about the incredible programmes and curriculum at RCEL. It turned out, perhaps not surprisingly, that those on the leadership development course had more successful start-ups, but: ‘Those who aren’t robust enough to make it need to go back to the classroom.’ But does ‘robustness’ accurately cover all the antecedents which oil the wheels of success in business? Benedict Dellot at the RSA has been looking at data from the national lifestyle survey and identified that affluence comes before entrepreneurship, as well as following it, see his blog on how ‘wealth is a key predictor of whether or not people can survive in self-employment’. Home owners and the highly qualified are more likely to be successful in business, pointing to the type of existing capital that is helpful to succeed. Psychologists observe that people tend to attribute their success to internal factors such as skill and persistence, rather than recognising the external factors which may have influenced outcomes, and maybe Hero Entrepreneurs are an amplified version of this. Perhaps their own experience of pursuing and achieving success, the grit and will they are able to summon and develop, leads to a type of context-blindness resulting in thinking everyone else just isn’t trying hard enough? I wondered how many of the successful RCEL graduates were also the ones who could afford to contribute to the plane ticket and stay in Silicon Valley, or the ones who had parents who could financially underwrite a period of test trading. A recognition of the pervasive nature and influences of class and inequality is well underway in mainstream education, and (from the conversations in the coffee queue, over lunch and at dinner), would be welcome in enterprise education too.

2) Student involvement

Linked to this in some way, was the significant strand of talk about students and their sometime disengagement with enterprise, their lack of understanding of how it might help them, and the way in which delivery and programmes seemed to lack resonance with their values and aspirations. At ISBE last year, Prof Laura Galloway produced fascinating research – ‘The Entrepreneurship Education Experience in HE – Does a decade make a difference?‘ The paper provides two snapshots comparing entrepreneurial competencies and ambitions from two student cohorts, one in 2005 and one in 2015. The 2015 cohort were more likely to have had enterprise education prior to HE and more likely to have access to entrepreneurial role models, but were less likely to want to run or own their own business. In 2015 they were more likely to want to work in the charity and public sector. Whilst the country as a whole just voted to leave the EU, it’s estimated that about 70% of young people voted to remain, and this recent youth parliament report gives an insight into the kind of societies they want to build and be part of: sustainable, compassionate and focussed on delivering social justice. And those aren’t just the views of a select few youth parliament types; check out the Twitter hashtag #HowToConfuseAMillenial for a regular tragi-comic update on the ways the generations are grating against each other. Perhaps the most visible elements of enterprise – the business contest, the Hero Entrepreneur – are simply out of step with these values. EEUK members’ workshops were full of brilliant insights and practice on how they were involving students: focussing on the human element – relationship building – from the very start; working with students to co-produce enterprise activities and programmes; seeing students as partners – not recipients – in the process of course design, teaching and learning. Which brings me to…

3) Concerns Change…

In the same way that enterprise education needs to align with the values of students, enterprise educators want to feel the field aligns with their own concerns. In my workshop on Enterprise Education and Initial Teacher Training I shared Fuller’s model on the Concerns of Teachers. Fuller’s work has been around for more than forty years and so, unsurprisingly, has become the subject of debate and reconceptualisation. Nevertheless, it’s a useful model to explore the importance of the personal element of ‘Becoming a Teacher.’ Fuller’s work describes the different concerns teachers have, including: concerns about self (will the students like me, can I do this?); concerns about task (what do I do?); and concerns about impact (what difference is it making?). The first two concerns are more about ‘survival’. I know when I started in enterprise education ten years ago, I didn’t have much time for critical analysis, I was too busy trying to do the job, engage the teacher, develop the training etc. I completed a Masters during this time, and if I look back on my concerns and the focus of my study, it was primarily about improving the practical elements of my work rather than critically exploring the philosophical elements. I worked on creating and evaluating training models, exploring the role of school liaison in the teacher development process, co-designing and testing an enterprise passport with teachers. Though this development has not, by any means, been a linear process, I can see that overall, I was initially more concerned with what works. Over time, this evolved into what might work for whom and in what circumstances. Increasingly, I feel I’m concerned with, as Biesta argues, what it works for, and who gets to decide that.

4) Put on your dancing shoes…

I enjoyed the entertainment and challenge of the final keynote, a two-hander from Penaluna and Gibson, which described their early experiences of enterprise education conferences when the narrowly focussed business agenda didn’t align with their experience and interests (‘Are we deranged?’ they asked themselves). They shared their ‘Walking Boots’ metaphor (if you’ve got your boots on, down in the long grass, looking up, you’ve got a different view)…and they challenged the audience to take the metaphor to inspire thinking and reflection. Over the course of the conference, there were a fair few enterprise education-related metaphors: references to elite sport; to eco-systems; to creatures… and I’d like to add another, somewhat frivolous analogy – dance. Leadership types reckon dance provides important lessons on innovation, adaptability and audience, and marketers suggest customers would be better served if they were conceived of as ‘dance partners’ a company moves with to a shared melody, and a shared purpose. The EEUK dance floor certainly rocked with shared purpose this year. It was an inspiring night in an incredible venue; Liverpool Cathedral providing the backdrop for the official launch of the Richard Beresford Memorial Bursaries, a really fitting tribute to someone described by his wife as curious, compassionate and committed to, and nourished by, the EEUK network. After awards were bestowed, Fellows made, sponsors thanked and speeches applauded, many headed over to the dance floor, encouraged by this year’s fantastic and energising live band. So, back to that metaphor; maybe good enterprise education is like a great dance in the way that it facilitates a creative act, is a vehicle for connection and enables self-expression.  Dance also has very different styles, with different sub-cultures – my usual dance (Modern Jive) is a far cry from Tango. So, in a complementary counter-point to Maggie’s starting advice, my conference was concluded with these sage thoughts: it’s OK not to dance to the same tune in enterprise education, instead ‘make your own gang’ (as Penaluna and Gibson suggested, and as @KatPen was describing to me below), and work on the things that compel you. With that in mind, I’m looking forward to ISBE next month, when the working paper I’ve co-authored with Nigel Culkin from the University of Hertfordshire and Ivan Diego from Valnalon, which questions the value of competitive pedagogy in entrepreneurship education, gets a wider audience. We’ve recently seen that there are very different ideologies available in the name of improving social mobility. Entrepreneurship education is often claimed to have positive spill-over effects in terms of social justice, but not all research supports this. I get the feeling, from this week’s conference, and the continued conversations on Twitter, that there’s much appetite for a critical exploration of enterprise/entrepreneurship education and wider issues influencing its impact. Sure, it’s happening, but it’s not centre stage. It’s time for social and economic influences to get more of the spotlight. Finally, for those to whom I was evangelising about Ceroc: here’s a class that coincides with ISBE in Paris. Let’s Dance!

kat-pen-and-me-crop

Four thoughts after Global Entrepreneurship Week (and ISBE and the National Enterprise Education Conference).

It’s that time of year again. Another Global Entrepreneurship Week has passed, and enterprise educators are reflecting on the 1589 activities that took place across the country (and the world). The GEW brand celebrates entrepreneurship through a week of ‘unleashing ideas’, ‘start up battles’ and changing the world.  Some will already be planning their programme for next year and some may be scratching their heads and asking: ‘What was that all about?’ Whatever your position, it’s undeniable that such sharp focus on entrepreneurship throws up all kinds of questions, possibilities and challenges. As well as GEW, the last three weeks included a National Enterprise Education Conference run by Enterprise Village and the 38th annual conference for the Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship in Glasgow. Though the conferences stood 400 miles apart and accommodated educators from different phases and diverging terminology, common ground could be heard during the intense conversation of delegates from the two events. It’s a fitting tribute to both to try and round up some takeaways whilst a spotlight shines on enterprise and entrepreneurship in the wake of Global Entrepreneurship Week.

  1. Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Part 1…

Ivor Tiefenbrun started his keynote to an audience of academics at ISBE, an entrepreneurship conference, with the declaration: ‘I don’t like the word entrepreneur.’ This is despite the fact that Ivor is the founder and chairman of Linn Products, a business he started in 1972 and which is recognised as an industry benchmark in terms of high quality audio. His journey at Linn began when (dissatisfied with his stereo, and, with an unfinished mechanical engineering course behind him), he set about creating a top quality record player. What made Linn unique was the control over every aspect of production, and an obsessive attention to quality. So it was curious that someone with such a track record in product and company building rejected, or at least felt unease about, the label of entrepreneur. When I ask teachers what they think of when they hear the word ‘entrepreneur’ the initial response, 9.99 times out of ten, is: ‘Alan Sugar’. This sort of stereotype might be a reason why someone as entrepreneurial as Ivor rejects the label. Ivor’s take on company management (a pretty flat structure, working in ‘family size’ teams, putting people first) seems at odds with the on-tap egos, arguments and ‘you’re fired!’ shenanigans of the TV show. Maybe, ten series of The Apprentice later, the label ‘entrepreneur’ needs a detox.

2) Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Part 2…

Interestingly, and perhaps linked in some way, in the Enterprise Education track at ISBE, Professor Laura Galloway shared longitudinal research where she and colleagues revisited students who had been surveyed ten years previously. Given that a criticism of entrepreneurship education research is the dearth of empirical and longitudinal research, the idea was simple but effective: use the same survey given to a cohort of students in 2005 to survey a cohort in 2015 and compare the results. Result: two snapshots of entrepreneurial perceptions and ambitions, a decade apart. Interestingly, though students reported a perceived increase in their entrepreneurial skills, their entrepreneurial ambitions went down. They wanted to be employed in the public sector and charities more than they wanted to run a business. The study was a quantitative snapshot and, as Prof Galloway pointed out, participant’s experiences may have been shaped by graduating in a recession and being burdened with massive student debt as much as any courses which they might have experienced. But she also acknowledged that over the last ten years, the profile of entrepreneurs has never been so high. Responses to survey questions around ‘enterprise culture’ reflected that growth. Participants were more likely to say they had a family member, friend or partner running a business, and were significantly more likely to have experienced enterprise education before university. Prof Galloway concluded that the findings have important implications for research (What’s the real driver of entrepreneurship? What’s the value of entrepreneurship in other employment contexts), and teaching (What are we trying to achieve? What are the implications for pedagogy?).

3) The winner takes it all, the loser standing small?

Which brings me to a third thought, which may be a bit off message in the afterglow of GEW. It’s hard to start challenging widely held views about established enterprise education models, but I’d argue that we don’t know nearly enough about the effects that different approaches have on how young people think and do.  The last three weeks will have seen students of all ages undertake a blizzard of business competitions and challenges. It’s the ubiquitous enterprise education model – relatively easy to understand and deliver, plenty of off-the-shelf resources for educators, and participants apparently having to use and develop their enterprise skills through the process. But do we really know what the effect is? Imagine learning anything else through a model where you do a day-long challenge (or maybe longer if you’re lucky) and at the end of it 90-95% of the room or teams end up as (implicitly) losers. How do we know that what young people aren’t actually learning is that there’s no point in thinking about running a business because they won’t be successful at it? There’s a big difference between reporting you’ve used your team work skills, or thought of a business idea, or had fun, and then what meaning you take from the whole experience. There is an argument that it’s good to weed out over-optimism and put off those who wouldn’t have the skills to lead and grow a business. Perhaps that would be a tolerable view if business competitions were designed and delivered only to identify and support these unicorns of business. But they’re not. Business competitions and challenges are delivered in all phases of education now, from primary upwards, and this is likely to grow with recent moves to develop ‘Enterprise for All.’ Many young people, unicorns or otherwise, will have to make work for themselves at some point if they want to have a job, or if they want to have some job satisfaction. Learning that business ‘isn’t for them’ by repeatedly losing in enterprise challenges might have the same effect that competitive sport can have on pupils who don’t excel – they don’t want to, or think they should, take part.

4) Conscripts, mercenaries or volunteers…

It was great to see, after a few years of dwindling interest in enterprise education nationally, a good and enthusiastic turnout to the Enterprise Village conference at BIS in London. Amongst the sense of buoyancy and hopefulness, there was a theme in side discussions with teachers who described the struggle they can have ‘selling’ enterprise education to senior leadership and colleagues back at school. There were some teachers, tasked as ‘Enterprise Champions’, feeling as if they were at the base camp of Everest. Yes it feels exciting, but not a little lonely and dangerous. Having to ‘get colleagues on board’ always comes up in ‘embedding enterprise’ discussions, dependent as it is on wide buy in that crosses subjects and topics. Such an endeavour requires commitment and loyalty, and is achieved over time. In my experience, the best advocates in the early days are volunteers, the early adopters who help develop and test practice and have techniques and good news to share. Nothing will scupper the development of enterprise culture like forcing people into a role and then not giving them the resources to undertake it. Ivor Tiefenbrun had a nugget in this department – when everything is going great it doesn’t matter if you’ve got a conscript, mercenary or volunteer….but if things get difficult, you’ll know the difference. Interestingly, he attributed the success of Linn not to technology and innovation, but to people. ‘Anyone can spot a problem or an opportunity,’ he said. ‘I wanted my company to look after suppliers, customers and its people.’ He called the way people worked together the only source of sustainable competitive advantage: ‘We had great people who want to work together to build something more than they could alone, or by working with other people.’ No hard sell there, just the incredible pull of an important, shared endeavour. Sounds like a good strategy…

Four (initial) reflections after IEEC 2015…..

It took the appointment of an Entrepreneurship Tsar to prompt my first blog. It took three brilliant and thought provoking days at IEEC 2015 to inspire my second.

The International Entrepreneurship Educators Conference, held at Anglia Ruskin University last week, was a gathering of 200+ Enterprise Educators from across the UK and abroad. The keynote speeches, workshops and quick fire PechaKucha sessions provided rich food for thought and inspiration, as well as demonstrating an exciting range of entrepreneurial programmes and practice in Higher Education.

The long drive home from Essex provided a great opportunity for the sort of relaxed cognition Andy Penaluna described during one session. While sitting in my car, my neurons were a metaphorical oak tree, or a fir tree (I’m not sure which)…a tree at least, with squirrels running amok on the branches. I’m sure Andy and colleagues can better clarify what was going on at brain level, but below is a first attempt to organise my own initial thoughts after the conference…

  1. How we talk about our work matters…

Entrepreneurship Education is a field laden with technical language, theory and concept. Yamini Naidu’s  practical demonstration of ‘the curse of knowledge’ (how did I not guess that knuckle rendition of Happy Birthday?), showed that too much knowledge can thwart the ability to communicate in a way that engages, inspires and connects. Her inspiring talk was both a practical demonstration of the power of story-telling, and an education. Contrasting approaches to influencing (telling vs engaging, microwave vs casserole, push vs pull), she pointed out that when you are trying to get someone to do something they might not have to do, ‘hard power’ has its limitations. You don’t just want people to turn up, you want them to turn on. ‘Soft power’ rules, but it does take time and trust. The ability to connect with people through relatable story telling is crucial. Being able to describe what you do clearly was also a theme in Lyn Batchelor’s brilliant workshop. Those that were there enjoyed practising their verbal business card for the rest of the conference. As Lyn identified when she introduced the concept; it’s much more engaging (and easily understandable) to say ‘I help students become more employable or employ themselves’ rather than give a job title (or titles, in Lyn’s case). The verbal business card was an enjoyable activity with a serious message. Quickly communicating your work and its impact is important; we need to make it easier for people to immediately understand the difference we make, in our roles and as a field. Which brings me to my second thought….

2) It’s more than skills….

I’ve previously blogged here about the challenges of working to develop enterprise education in schools when there is no agreed curriculum. Repetition of activity, inconsistent progression and gaps in knowledge are rife. Donna Miller’s fascinating keynote demonstrated the problem which job-hunting students with an incomplete idea of what it means to be enterprising will face. As the Talent Acquisition Manager for Enterprise Rent-a-car, she gave a global-business-eye-view of what employers are looking for when they recruit young people. Donna shared some ‘must have’ qualities, and at the top of one list was commercial awareness. She discussed what recruiters might look for and when they might be looking for it. An interest and knowledge about current affairs and business, a clear idea of the recruiting business and its competitors, thoughts about where the recruiting company and its industry might be heading and trends in society and the economy that might be opportunities or risks for the recruiting company. Recruiters would be looking for evidence of this in answers at interview, in assessments, and even in chit chat over lunch. So in all the talk of transferable entrepreneurial skills and competencies, Donna’s presentation demonstrated that background knowledge and economic and business understanding is crucial (interestingly, this area – economic and business understanding – is identified by Ofsted as a persistent weakness in school provision too). A quick look at a KMPG’s ‘behavioural competencies’ demonstrates this prioritisation. ‘Career motivation’ is the number one competency, and is about demonstrating how much you know and understand about KPMG and the work you’d do there. The data I collect from schools at the beginning of our programmes reinforces a picture of this area as a gap. I’ve worked with Elena Ruskovaara at the University of Lappeenranta in Finland and adapted her pedagogical surveys to help teachers I work with reflect on the concrete practices that are included in entrepreneurial/enterprising learning. The surveys give teachers practical ideas of things they can do (‘use stories about entrepreneurs as teaching material’), but also identifies the frequency they perceive they deploy these pedagogies (daily/weekly/monthly/less often/never). Interestingly, results are relatively consistent across the country, and from different phases of education. Teachers generally identify that they already use pedagogies that increase learners’ independence, their team working, their problem solving skills. But they don’t often invite entrepreneurs into the classroom, tell stories about entrepreneurs or businesses, and (mostly) never take into account local and regional industry strategies when they plan enterprise education.  It feels wrong that young people in schools experience enterprise education as a practical activity (make and sell/bake and sell), that is entirely disconnected from the real economic opportunities that are out there. We’ve been developing ‘Industry Related Enterprise Learning’ with our schools to work on this area.

3) What unites us?

Which brings me to the request made during and after the last workshop I attended, led (heutagogically speaking) by Jones, Penaluna and Gibson. It included exploring differences in entrepreneurship activities and practice across universities, and then similarities in what unites entrepreneurship educators. Helping prepare students to find and make work and developing transformational learning which changed how students thought were initial inputs around ‘what unites us.’ It illuminated that despite differences in entrepreneurial programmes between institutions, entrepreneurial educators want them to achieve some of the same things. But differences in how to get there, what the programme of learning should be and how it should be taught was variable. Do you cover Schumpeter? Do you use a particular text book? Do you write your own? Are there elements of teaching and curricula that unite everyone? The workshop concluded with a request – feed-in to what a ‘scholarship of entrepreneurial learning’ should include. What should be taught and how should it be taught? This request was reiterated by Jones in the closing remarks: next year, he suggested, instead of sharing everything that’s different, why doesn’t the network look at what unites it?

4) Hang together and hang together for a long time…

My last thought comes from Simon Bond’s talk-through of the success story that is SetSquared, the number 1 high-tech start-up/accelerator in Europe, number 2 globally. He didn’t gloss over the time and effort it took to achieve this. In a master stroke of story-telling, he likened the journey to the Wizard of Oz – ‘We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto.’ Like the Wizard of Oz, everyone is on a different journey. The five universities, and all the researchers, students and entrepreneurs involved have different motivations and different needs. What was Simon’s answer to this? ‘Hang together, and hang together for a long time.’ It’s good advice – simple, but deep. It’s something (as a relative newbie to the conference – 3rd year as a delegate, 1st as an exhibiter), I feel is evident at IEEC. As outgoing chair of EEUK, Sheila Quairney said in her opening address, attendance and interest is holding. It’s not been the same journey in the schools sector; the lack of policy and the lack of resources has impacted on involvement and innovation. Until very recent changes in policy, the message to schools with regards to enterprise education could be summarised as this – ‘Yes, of course it’s a good thing, but you don’t have to do it, and you won’t be asked about it.’ New statutory guidance on careers inspiration and the latest iteration of the Ofsted schools inspection framework  (go to page 52 for the magic words ‘employment and self-employment’) does at least give some pointers to schools. Helping prepare young people find and make work and have the skills and knowledge to become productive, financially independent adults should be part of young people’s education. The documents above are start, but I’ve written here why they won’t lead to ‘Enterprise for All.’  A theme from the panel discussion, track chairs and from the closing remarks was that people are doing really good work. Elin McCallum’s background as a policy maker in Europe gives her extensive experience and examples to contrast with, so it’s heartening to hear that although policy hasn’t been as robust as European colleagues, she sees the UK as ahead of the game practice-wise. But as Keith Burnley, CEO of NCEE, said – there has been a disconnect between business and education policy. In my work, the priorities of schools are more influenced by the Department for Education and Ofsted than BiS, and even more so by the obvious and necessary pressure of ensuring pupil progress and attainment. Unless the conversation about entrepreneurial learning in schools mobilises around supporting and accelerating pupil progress through better quality teaching and learning, it won’t go very far. My ‘Steve Blank’ chats with conference attendees demonstrated this well to me (thanks for your time and experiences). With a couple of exceptions, everyone I talked to (if their university had an education/teacher training department), was either not working with them, or had been knocked back. There is opportunity on the horizon with the roll out of the Enterprise Advisor pilot and the advent of the Careers and Enterprise Company. Universities could use their knowledge and skills in entrepreneurial, enterprising and careers learning to develop or extend their valuable work in school outreach and make an impact in communities. But getting engagement with schools now depends on getting the story right and doing what works (scroll down for my previous blog which included some comment on the unintended consequences of some enterprise interventions). I enjoyed the concluding comments from the track chairs and the conference organisers which warmly appreciated the quality and passion of enterprise educators. It struck me what incredible expertise and brain power existed in that conference hall. I’m already looking forward to next year’s conference, which will be hosted at Liverpool John Moores University. Following on from the creative and entertaining genius of Jones, Penaluna and Gibson, there could be an extension to their request. Perhaps, as well as listen and learn and show and tell, there could be a ‘Do’ track, or a ‘Hack’ track, where interested parties could work on something tangible whilst they were at the conference. Unconferences, Innovation Camps and Hackathons use this method to good effect, leveraging the talent and time of attendees to create as well as learn. Whatever the plan though, without a doubt, I’m already looking forward to hanging together at IEEC 2016.