Role and impact of the environment on entrepreneurial learning

Abstract

This article is presenting an overview of the literature devoted to entrepreneurial learning and, more specifically, those research bringing environmental elements into the study of the entrepreneurial learning process. Then, it shows how each of the four Special Issue selected research papers contribute to enhancing our knowledge of the complexity of the learning process vis-à-vis entrepreneurial processes placed in context. By doing this, it makes an attempt to explain the specific context behind each contribution as well as presenting the wider context. Finally, the article is suggesting a set of key challenges and research pathways that might be explored in the future.

Keywords:

• Entrepreneurial learning
• entrepreneurship education
• environmental factors
• education context

1. Introduction

One of the key consequences of the wealth of scientific literature in the field of entrepreneurship education has been the emergence of a wide variety of concepts and types of learning (Gibb 1996; Neck and Greene 2011). These have been employed across diverse disciplines (Landström and Lohrke 2010) and founded on the generally accepted principle that entrepreneurship learning is closely connected to the entrepreneurial process (Holcomb et al. 2009). Despite this diversity, these ways of learning to become an entrepreneur share certain similarities and are essentially based on: action and using one’s experience (Cope 2005; Kuratko 2005; Rae and Carswell 2000; Tracey and Phillips 2007); the transformation of the individual (Mezirow 1997; Pittaway and Cope 2007); failure and emotions (Cardon et al. 2012; Shepherd 2003); organisational learning (Corbett, Neck, and DeTienne 2007; Harrison and Leitch 2005; Honig 2001); the dynamic learning processes in entrepreneurship (Cope 2005; Politis 2005; Secundo, Schiuma, and Passiante 2017); and the role of networks (Karataş-Özkan 2011; Lamine et al. 2015; Lee and Jones 2008; Lefebvre, Radu Lefebvre, and Simon 2015).

Scientific production in the field of entrepreneurship education displays certain weaknesses (Byrne, Fayolle, and Toutain 2014; Fayolle 2013), in particular, the lack of consideration afforded to the role of the social environment in the learning process (Jones and Spicer 2009; Lave and Wenger 1991). Entrepreneurship education has been studied more from a focus on the individual-entrepreneur than from the perspective of the social interactions that shape the entrepreneurial process and context for learning. Despite this weakness it can be argued that entrepreneurship is fundamentally a collective process (Jones and Spicer 2009), that it relies on the interaction between an individual, his or her developing company, and the environment (Bruyat and Julien 2001).

Further, the importance of the contribution of effectual logic in understanding the entrepreneurial process (Sarasvathy 2001; Sarasvathy and Venkataraman 2011) offers advances in the field of education (Verzat et al. 2016). Coupled with the need to move closer to the daily reality of the entrepreneur (Edelman, Manolova, and Brush 2008) requires greater illumination of the learning process for becoming an entrepreneur, a phenomenon that can be considered a complex and localised social construct (Lave and Wenger 1991; Morin 2008).

This special edition aims to shed new light on the role of the environment in entrepreneurial learning. Twenty-five articles from seventeen countries were submitted. In the end, four were accepted for publication. Clearly, these four articles do not cover the whole range of subjects and cannot possibly answer all questions but they do show how previous experience (particularly in a company), role models, pedagogies, education programmes, the kind of training offered and even the university itself actively influence the development of a complex and localised learning experiences.

Our introductory article explains the specific context behind each of the four articles as well as presenting the wider context. To do so, we begin by presenting an overview of the literature devoted to entrepreneurial learning and, more specifically, works which bring environmental elements into the study of the entrepreneurial learning process. We then show how each of the chosen research papers contribute to enhancing our knowledge of the complexity of the learning process vis-à-vis entrepreneurial processes placed in context. We finish by identifying the main challenges and research pathways that might be explored in the future.

2. Environment and entrepreneurial learning: a literature review

Entrepreneurship education is currently experiencing a level of success that links the political, educational, scientific and professional spheres and is ingrained in every social layer of western society. Strong development of training courses is occurring alongside a high volume of scientific output that relates to the three educational dimensions: educating on the subject of entrepreneurship (about), educating to become an entrepreneur (for), and educating by engaging in entrepreneurship (through) (Blenker et al. 2011). In order to contextualise the four papers that we present in this special edition, we have gone back to the literature review carried out by Byrne, Fayolle and, Toutain (2012, 2014).

2.1. Chosen methodology

This literature review was carried out by the systematic exploration of nine top-ranking international scientific journals: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP); Small Business Economic (SBE); Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM); Journal of Management Education (JME); International Journal of Management Education (IJME); Journal of Business Venturing (JBV); International Small Business Journal (ISBJ); Academy of Management Learning and Education (AoMLE) and Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (ERD).

In these works, we first looked at the 86 publications selected by Byrne, Fayolle & Toutain during the period of 1984–2011 ¹ because they are devoted to ‘entrepreneurial learning’ and centred on individual learning. The selection criteria for these articles involved a search using the key words ‘entrepren*’ ² , ‘education’, ‘learn’, ‘learning’ in the titles and abstracts. Articles containing recommendations or implications for entrepreneurial education were included in the selection. Conversely, book reviews, letters from the editor and case studies were systematically excluded. Once the articles were identified, we cross-referenced the titles and abstracts of each article in order to definitively confirm their relevance to our research into entrepreneurship education focussed on individuals (and not organisations).

We then completed this first literature review by selecting articles published from 2012–2016, using the same methodology and the same journals. In the end, we selected fifty-five supplementary articles, which gave us a data base of 141 articles dealing with entrepreneurship education of individuals in the period 1984–2016.

Finally, amongst these 141 publications, we selected those that directly integrated the question of the relationship between the individual and the environment in entrepreneurship education. To do so, we re-read all titles and abstracts and finally retained forty-two articles. Our thematic analysis of these forty-two articles led us to identify three categories: the influence of the environment on entrepreneurship learning initiatives, the influence of the environment on individual learning, and the mutual individual-environment influence shaping learning based on social interaction.

These three categories offer a framework for analysis which allows us to organise and understand the main contributions of research published in top-ranking scientific journals. These contributions are based on the question of the role played by the environment in learning about the entrepreneurial process. The contributions taken from our literature review are presented in the following section in order to contextualise and introduce this special edition.

2.2. Exploring the place of the environment in learning about the entrepreneurial process

Forty-two articles, representing around a third of the articles selected from our final data base (141 articles) deal with the question of the relationship between the environment and the entrepreneurship learning process (see Table 1).

Table 1. Relations between individual/learning/environment in the entrepreneurial learning process.

Journals	No. of articles identified	Influence of environment on entrepreneurship learning initiatives	Influence of environment on individual learning	Mutual influence individual-environment
JME + IJME	8	3	4	1
JBV	7	3	6	1
ERD	8	1	2	3
ETP	5	2	3	1
AOMLE	5		2	1
JSBM	4		2	2
ISBJ	3		2	1
SBE	2	1		1
Total	42	10	21	11

Generally, the journals IJME and JME, JBV and ERD include the highest number of publications on the subject. A majority of writers (twenty-one) favour an approach targeting the influence of the environment on the individual’s learning. The JBV journal also dedicates a large majority of selected publications on the subject. Eleven writers present an approach centred on a relationship of mutual influence based on the individual-environment interaction. Finally, ten research papers also deal with the influence of the environment on entrepreneurship learning initiatives.

2.2.1. The influence of the environment on entrepreneurship learning initiatives

In ten articles devoted to entrepreneurship education, the environment is dealt with as a milieu that plays a role of positive influence on the development of learning initiatives in entrepreneurship. Here, the environment is essentially dealt with on two levels.

Dodd and Hynes (2012), Mosakowski, Calic, and Christopher Earley (2013), Motoyama and Knowlton (2016) and Lévesque, Minniti, and Shepherd (2009) look at the environment at the macro level of the ecosystem, the region and culture. More specifically, Motoyama and Knowlton (2016) show to what point an incentive-based regional policy (notably via business start-up competitions and a policy of subsidies for entrepreneurs) encourages learning through the development of interaction and mutual aid networks between entrepreneurs and through more general access to existing resources (mentoring, finance), and thus improves survival rates for new businesses. Dodd and Hynes (2012) finish with a comparative study of several European regions and show the singular influence of the local context within these regions in the training of ‘entrepreneurial communities’. These are built around the stories of the experiences of entrepreneurs who belong to them and who participate in the social construction of the meaning given to entrepreneurship in the local environment. When universities introduce entrepreneurs’ experiences and present credible local personalities it can play a role in encouraging entrepreneurship learning. But the environment can also be hostile to the development of entrepreneurship learning. Lévesque, Minniti, and Shepherd (2009) show that the greater the amount of information to be learned, the more effective learning by other means becomes (participative learning), and less the environment is hostile. Finally, Mosakowski, Calic, and Christopher Earley (2013) question the relationship between the specificity of the cultural context and the effectiveness of learning about the entrepreneurial process and thus offer four characteristics that facilitate intercultural learning.

Another series of articles in this category looks at the influence of the environment on a more local level. Zahra, Newey, and Shaver (2011) highlight the influence of consulting advice in entrepreneurship centres on the preferences of directors, the contents of the entrepreneurship teaching programmes and, more generally, on the improvement of students’ entrepreneurship education. In a special edition of the JME review, Flannery and Pragman (2010), McCrea (2010), Litzky, Godshalk, and Walton-Bongers (2010) show how ‘service learning’ affects the way students (including those with no experience) steer their own learning based on their own preferences and interactions with their environment. The feedback from clients, mentors and other students encourages the development of personal reflection and experience-based learning. Other than changes to the way of learning, the use of this kind of externalised learning also generates radical changes to pedagogies and ways of evaluating the results. These changes, however, depend on the commitment of the university and community created to this effect. On this matter, Lindh and Thorgren (2016) highlight how interactions between local businesses, schools and teachers encourage entrepreneurship learning and thus contribute to strengthening local development.

Finally, Wyrwich, Stuetzer, and Sternberg (2016) deal more closely with the influence of the environment on learning initiatives by looking at role models. The writers focus more specifically on the role played by the institutional context in determining the effectiveness of using role models in entrepreneurship education. Using data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Project, the writers show that observation of other entrepreneurs, in a context where entrepreneurship is strongly supported by institutions, reduces the risk of entrepreneurial failure.

To sum up this section, the literature review produced on the influence of the environment on entrepreneurship learning initiatives reveals three types of distinct similarities: (1) the environment considered on a macro level; (2) the environment constituted by the university and stakeholders who are involved in putting in place and improving entrepreneurship learning initiatives (consulting advice, clients, mentors, teachers, other students); (3) the environment seen through the influence of the role models that exist within it (see Table 2).

Table 2. The influence of the environment on entrepreneurship learning initiatives.

Environment considered on a macro-level	Authors
Influence of an incentivizing regional policy	Motoyama and Knowlton (2016)
Influence of local context on development of local entrepreneurial communities and learning of entrepreneurial process	Dodd and Hynes (2012)
Relationship between environmental hostility and participative learning of the entrepreneurial process (based on amount of information available)	Lévesque, Minniti, and Shepherd (2009)
Relations between the specificity of the cultural context and efficiency of the entrepreneurial learning process	Mosakowski, Calic, and Christopher Earley (2013)
Environment limited to university and stakeholders
Influence of consultative advice from entrepreneurship centres	Zahra, Newey, and Shaver (2011)
Effect of ‘service learning’	Flannery and Pragman (2010), McCrea (2010), Litzky, Godshalk, and Walton-Bongers (2010)
Interactions between local businesses, schools and teachers	Lindh and Thorgren (2016)
Environment seen through influence of role models
Role played by institutional context in effectiveness of role models	Wyrwich, Stuetzer, and Sternberg (2016)

On the other hand, on the basis of the analytical model proposed by Fayolle and Gailly (2008) and used by Byrne, Fayolle, and Toutain (2014), the articles produced in this category are largely focused on the question of the subject under observation ‘What’ (53%) and the results produced (‘which results’), to the detriment of the question of ‘how’, which would allow better understanding of how the different levels observed in the environment influence entrepreneurship learning. Finally, we note that study of the general meaning (‘why’) of the influence of the environment on individual entrepreneurship learning is not dealt with at all. Nevertheless, further illumination of this question of meaning would allow promising research-action pathways to be opened up. This might target in particular the alignment of research objectives ³ concerning entrepreneurial learning between institutions, universities, programme directors and stakeholders in the learning process (mentors, students, teachers, etc.).

2.2.2. The influence of the environment on individual learning

This category includes 50% of the forty-two articles selected. The general analysis of these articles led to us forming three categories: (1) learning via networks present in the environment and their type of influence; (2) the programmes, methods, and pedagogical tools considered as transmitters of influence from the environment on individual learning; (3) the environment defined more generally as a context directly influencing the individual learning process.

2.2.1.1. Networks and type of influence

Firstly, the networks that influence how the individual learns about entrepreneurship are tackled in five different ways. Pittaway et al. (2011, 2015) look at the learning processes of students who belong to two types of clubs: ‘entrepreneurship clubs’ and ‘Enactus clubs’. The writers show that participation in these clubs simulates important pedagogical aspects in entrepreneurship education, such as learning by doing, learning through mistakes or even learning from entrepreneurs. Morselli, Costa, and Margiotta (2014) continue with this approach and show that ‘work experience’ feeds individual learning when it is accompanied by discussion between different actors (for example, with internship mentors and teachers) and more generally by a process of reflecting on experience. On the same theme of clubs, (Pittaway et al. 2011, 2015) and work experience (Morselli, Costa, and Margiotta 2014), Mosey and Wright (2007) bring clarification of the relationship between the environment, the development of networks, and learning by experience. They show that entrepreneurs with previous entrepreneurial experience have, on the one hand, larger social networks, and on the other hand, are more effective in developing advantages from their networks than entrepreneurs with little or no experience. In addition, learning through a network is also established on the basis of a relationship of trust. Brunetto and Farr-Wharton (2007) show to what extent trust relationships developed by entrepreneurs with members of their network encourage the learning of how to detect new business opportunities and contribute more generally to exploiting potential benefits offered by networks.

Finally, resources present in the environment do not automatically transform into learning. Ramachandran and Ramnarayan (1993) show that actually, innovative and pioneering entrepreneurs do not systematically adopt suggestions and ideas from their networks but synthesise them with the aim of learning as much as they can from them. In other words, the more entrepreneurs use their critical analysis skills to transform information from their environment, the more they tend to develop pioneering and innovative activities. These writers highlight the importance of critical thinking in the learning process of the individual who takes advantage of the resources offered by their network. In these network approaches (the influence of clubs, the world of work, previous experience, critical analysis), the environment, therefore, plays a role of direct stimulator in individual learning. This approach opens up a number of new questions, in particular the question of cognitive and metacognitive regulation mechanisms of the effects of networks on individual learning and of the role played by these networks in the proximal development zone of the individual entrepreneur (Vygotsky [1934] 1962 ).

2.2.1.2. Programmes, methods and tools as transmitters of environmental influence

In this second corpus of scientific articles, programmes, methods and pedagogical tools are considered as transmitters of environmental influence to the individual learning process. The research papers we present below are based on an analysis of how these influence transmitters affect the individual’s entrepreneurial learning.

Donnellon, Ollila, and Middleton (2014) show the influence of context on a training programme for business creation and of the student’s previous experience on the development of his or her own entrepreneurial identity. In the same vein, Kwong, Thompson, and Cheung (2012) use a training course relating to social entrepreneurship to analyse the effectiveness of teaching social business plans on the development of students’ intention to create ‘socially-oriented’ entrepreneurial activities. In this study, the pedagogical tool serves as a transmitter encouraging awareness of the social dimension of the environment and the re-appropriation of these challenges by the participants. Likewise, Klapper (2014) shows the effects produced by a methodology based on ‘Personal Construct Theory’ on students’ capacity to develop partnerships with their colleagues and to think in a proactive way about developing their network.

Evans and Volery (2001) present another technology-based learning transmitter. They carry out a study relating to an online business development support service. The writers show that the resources offered by this internet advice and network service can be useful for learning, with certain caveats – (1) the online tools must represent a real advantage for the user (going beyond the simple idea of ‘learning together’); (2) personal contact must be offered alongside the online services; (3) there must be an efficient internet service.

In another field, Fletcher (2007) looks at the narrative coming from entrepreneurs’ experience of the environment. Notably, she highlights the importance of reflexivity that stems from the telling of an entrepreneurial story. The writer shows that the re-appropriation of a text written by an entrepreneur (via the formulation of answers from the reader) becomes a source of meaning in their personal learning process. These explicit results join up, to a certain extent, with those of Ramachandran and Ramnarayan (1993) in showing the contributions of reflexivity and critical analysis in the construction of individual learning from resources present in the environment.

On the other hand, Holcomb et al. (2009) highlight the effects of heuristics (in line with the resources present in the environment) in two different learning contexts - learning by experience and vicarious learning. In particular, they highlight that certain heuristics influence learning in a positive and negative way, thus allowing the development of a very high level of adaptation and accumulation of knowledge. Conversely, they can also distort judgements and create learning bias.

On a different note, Elmes et al. (2012) bring to light, via the example of a learning experience in an informal setting close to Cape Town in South Africa, the influence of ‘place-based perspective’ in the understanding of the social context, and more generally in learning about the concrete local challenges relating to entrepreneurship and innovation.

Finally, the influence of the environment on individual learning also emerges through the field of perceived entrepreneurial competencies. Lans, Verstegen, and Mulder (2011) draw up an entrepreneurial competency framework based on a survey of 348 small businesses in the German food-processing sector.

2.2.1.3. The environment defined as a context of unilateral influence on individual learning

The third research category selected for this section shows to what extent the environment, defined by the context, influences individual learning.

Generally speaking, Sardana and Scott-Kemmis (2010) highlight the lack of scientific works shedding light on the relationship between the learning context and learning content. The writers are interested in the mutual influence of the entrepreneur’s previous experience, the role played by the entrepreneur in his or her company, and the characteristics of the company on their entrepreneurship learning.

On a different note, Breslin and Jones (2014) show how an ecological approach allows one to transform ways of learning by giving greater consideration to the impact of the entrepreneurial activity. The relationship between the learning process and consideration of environmental factors thus encourages the emergence of new business ideas linked to the external world, which require greater awareness of the challenges linked to environmental protection.

Parker (2006) studies how entrepreneurs learn and adjust their beliefs from signals and new information from the environment (defined by the market). Dimov (2007) also shows that a dynamic development context for entrepreneurial opportunities allows individuals to learn to become entrepreneurs, particularly by prioritising sought-after knowledge and by adapting the learning style to the situation at hand.

Anna et al. (2000) employ the theory of ‘social learning next term’ ⁴ (Bandura 1969) to analyse the differences in terms of a feeling of self-efficiency, career prospects and social support perceived between female entrepreneurs in traditional and non-traditional sectors. The authors show, for example, that women entrepreneurs in the traditional sector more often connect detection of opportunity with the efficiency of their activities, paying greater attention to life balance between career and security and, finally, highlighting that received financial support from the environment plays an important role in the development of their business. More generally, the way in which these entrepreneurial women learn and develop their entrepreneurial activity is socially determined by their relation to the environment in which they are evolving, in particular the observation of successful behaviour of other entrepreneurs in their milieu. O’Neil and Ucbasaran (2016) continue with this research pathway by looking at the legitimisation process that supports individual learning. The writers show that after a first stage of intrinsic legitimisation based on beliefs and values, the entrepreneur takes part in a search for extrinsic legitimisation via the environment (from ‘what matters to me’ to ‘what matters to them’). Stakeholder awareness of the entrepreneurial context also leads entrepreneurs to learn in a reflexive way to adapt their legitimisation work.

De Clercq et al. (2012) approach the subject via the theme of early internationalisation in the development process of newly-created businesses. The writers show the effects of a rapid process of internationalisation on learning via five types of knowledge acquisition: experiential learning, vicarious learning, information seeking, graft and congenital learning.

To sum up this section, the influence of the environment on individual learning is dealt with in the literature from three main angles: networks, programmes, and methods and pedagogical tools (considered as transmitters of influence from the environment) and the contexts that shape individual learning (see Table 3).

Table 3. Environmental influence factors on individual learning.

Type of network influence	Authors
Clubs	Pittaway et al. (2011, 2015)
Work experience	Morselli, Costa, and Margiotta (2014)
Previous experience, learning by doing	Mosey and Wright (2007)
Relationships of trust	Brunetto and Farr-Wharton (2007)
Critical analysis and transformation of resources into substantial learning	Ramachandran and Ramnarayan (1993)
Environmental influence transmitters: programmes, tools, methods
Construction of entrepreneurial identity	Donnellon, Ollila, and Middleton (2014)
Social business plan	Kwong, Thompson, and Cheung (2012)
Personal Construct Theory	Klapper (2014)
Online support service	Evans and Volery (2001)
Narrative and reflexivity	Fletcher (2007)
Heuristics	Holcomb et al. (2009)
Actual place of learning	Elmes et al. (2012)
Entrepreneurial skills	Lans, Verstegen, and Mulder (2011)
The context
Relationships in learning context (individual-company-previous experience)/learning content	Sardana and Scott-Kemmis (2010)
Relationship between learning process/environmental factors/new types of business	Breslin and Jones (2014)
Adaptation of beliefs relating to environmental signals	Parker (2006)
Influence of context of entrepreneurial development opportunities on organisation of knowledge and learning styles	Dimov (2007)
Effect of social learning on ways of learning and developing entrepreneurial activity	Anna et al. (2000)
Process of environmental legitimisation	O’Neil and Ucbasaran (2016)
Effect of rapid internationalisation on the acquisition of entrepreneurial knowledge	De Clercq et al. (2012)

2.2.2. Relationship of mutual individual-environment influence in the construction of learning

This third and last section contains 13 research papers in which the writers explicitly study the individual/environment interaction, the effects of which generate changes as much in the individual as in the environment around him/her. Bruyat and Julien (2001) introduce this approach well, highlighting that the entrepreneur is not a machine who responds automatically to environmental stimuli, but a human capable of reacting, learning and influencing the environment.

We divide how the individual/environment interaction is dealt with in the eleven selected articles into two categories: (1) networks and learning communities; (2) the company, team and environment.

2.2.2.1. Networks and learning communities

In the previous section, certain writers considered the network as a grouping of resources that influence the individual in his or her learning of the entrepreneurial process. Tjosvold and Weicker (1993) show the network is also a place of interaction that allows the entrepreneur to learn and discover new ideas. In addition, the combination of interactions and the establishing of goals based on cooperation with members of the environment improves the efficiency of network use. In this same vein, Lefebvre, Radu Lefebvre, and Simon (2015) look at the network as a dynamic process that is constantly transforming itself under the influence of the actions of the student entrepreneur. In other words, the writers show that learning entrepreneurship is both a process and a result of social interaction. The entrepreneur’s learning needs contribute to helping the network evolve in an interactive manner. The development of the network can thus develop into a community of practice. Howorth, Smith, and Parkinson (2012) also take an interest in the community of practice in the field of social entrepreneurship learning. The researchers show how reflexive thinking and community of practice contribute to identity construction and psychological security for entrepreneurs, who must know how to simultaneously juggle social and economic goals.

In research carried out in Sweden, Johannisson et al. (2007) presents his concept of ‘interstanding’ based on a learning process defined by interaction between students, teachers and members of the local entrepreneurial community (entrepreneurs and stakeholders). The interactions are defined by creative conversations as well as discussions of theoretical models and empirical approaches to entrepreneurship between different members of the community and students. In particular, the researcher highlights the idea that reality – and the learning that goes with it – is a social construct produced by the community of interaction and practice.

Dana and Light (2011) deal with the concept of the community of practice via the cultural theme. They carried out a comparative study between reindeer farmers who feel first and foremost Finnish, and other reindeer farmers who identify themselves primarily as members of the Sami community. In their research results, the authors highlight that, in contrast to the Finnish reindeer herders, the Sami farmers do not seek to maximise profit as a priority. What interests them above all is maintaining a cultural tradition founded on abilities, beliefs, habits, interests and ways of living and acting. All the characteristics that make up the culture of a community also influence how young people learn to become entrepreneurs. This cultural approach to the community of practice is continued in the works of Robinson and Shumar (2014), who show the relevance of the ethnography in analysing the ways in which the behaviour and entrepreneurial practices develop through socially-constructed communities.

2.2.4.2. The company, team and environment

In this second section, the writers turn their attention to the effects of interactions on individual learning, the team and the transformation of the company.

Firstly, Downing (2005) studies the contribution of the interactions between entrepreneurs and company stakeholders on the learning of the business model, construction of a vision, innovation, development of a network and social capital. The researcher shows that notions of individual and collective identity, as well as those relating to the organisation, are co-produced over time on the basis of narrative and emotional processes, which allows the construction of meaning.

Byrne et al. (2016) focus their attention on intrapreneurship training within a multinational company. They show that intrapreneurship training via an approach based on action learning and the use of a conceptual training model for entrepreneurship depends on awareness of the relationship between the individual, the group and the situation.

Liu, Wright, and Filatotchev (2015) look at the impact of learning undertaken by repatriated entrepreneurs on company performance. They show that the experience of the returned entrepreneur and his or her vicarious learning boosts the company’s performance, particularly in young companies. Still in the field of performance, Morris et al. (2013) focus their research more specifically on the identification of skills necessary for entrepreneurial action. To do so, they use the theory of structuration and define the skills as being produced through interactions between the individual and the environment. The writers identify thirteen key skills that come from a co-construction between the individual and the environment with which he or she is in dialogue.

To summarise this section (see Table 4), we have classified the research dedicated to the relationship of mutual influence between the individual and the environment in entrepreneurship education into two main categories: firstly, networks and learning communities, and secondly, the company, teams and its environment. In the first category, the research studies the idea of ‘communities of practice’ through different approaches, such as the network (Lefebvre, Radu Lefebvre, and Simon 2015; Tjosvold and Weicker 1993), the construction of entrepreneur identity (Howorth, Smith, and Parkinson 2012), creative conversations with the local entrepreneurial community (Johannisson et al. 2007), the culture of communities (Dana and Light 2011) and the social constituents of the community in question (Robinson and Shumar 2014). In the second category, we placed the research that deals more precisely with the mutual individual-company influence in the construction of learning. There again, the effects generated by these interactions manifest in particular through the observation of construction processes in which the individual, the group and the organisation mutually influence one another and transform through the individual learning process (Byrne et al. 2016; Downing 2005). This transformation can be observed from the angle of company performance (Liu, Wright, and Filatotchev 2015) or skills (Morris et al. 2013).

Table 4. Relationship of mutual influence between individual and environment in the construction of learning.

Networks and learning communities	Authors
Co-construction of learning with the community	Tjosvold and Weicker (1993) and Lefebvre, Radu Lefebvre, and Simon (2015)
Construction of entrepreneur’s identity	Howorth, Smith, and Parkinson (2012)
Creative dialogue, local entrepreneurial community	Johannisson et al. (2007)
Culture of communities	Dana and Light (2011)
Social constituents	Robinson and Shumar (2014)
Mutual influence business-individual in the construction of learning
Co-construction of individual and collective identity, construction of meaning	Downing (2005)
Interaction individual/group/learning situation	Byrne et al. (2016)
Interaction previous experience/vicarious learning/company performance	Liu, Wright, and Filatotchev (2015)
Co-construction of entrepreneurial skills	Morris et al. (2013)
Mutual influence individual-company-environment	Bruyat and Julien (2001)

3. Environment and entrepreneurial learning: insights from the special edition

The articles that we present in this special edition contribute to a deeper understanding of the works presented in the previous section. Without claiming to address the plethora of questions that arise on the mutual influence between the environment and the individual’s entrepreneurial learning, these works nonetheless offer clarification with regard to the following questions:

•	How do entrepreneurs learn from the role models present in their environment? When? In which situations? To learn what?
•	How does the university environment (and the training courses offered) influence ways of learning about entrepreneurship, in particular the combined mobilisation of effectual and causal logic adapted to the circumstances of the learning process?
•	To what extent does the entrepreneurship training context offered by the university play a positive role in the individual’s entrepreneurship education? At what point are the courses studied depreciated by a critical view from the student and do they produce a negative impact in the formation of his or her active social capital?
•	What are the conditions required in the learning environment in order to learn entrepreneurial proactivity?

In the literature review presented in the previous section, role models were studied from the angle of the relationship between their effectiveness and the institutional context (Wyrwich, Stuetzer, and Sternberg 2016). The scientific direction of this contribution also helps the observation and analysis of the effects of the influence of role models on entrepreneurship learning initiatives. Conversely, it does not allow us to understand how entrepreneurs learn from role models and in what context(s).

Zozimo, Jack & Hamilton, in their article entitled ‘Entrepreneurial learning from observing role models’, focus on the study of learning processes from the entrepreneurs’ role models. In other words, the writers do not especially focus on a type of role model, but try to answer the central question: ‘how do entrepreneurs learn from observing role models?’ by focussing on the role played by the social context of learning. To do this, they build their study around two key secondary questions about the learning process from role models. The first relates to the social context - where and how are role models observed? The second sub-question relates more to entrepreneurial learning - what is learned from observing role models? Do the biographical interviews of sixteen entrepreneurs also allow us to better understand who the role models are (parents, teachers, colleagues, other entrepreneurs)? What are the most relevant social contexts (home, education, workplace)? and what is learned in relation to entrepreneurial activity (learning about oneself, managing relationships, the business and small business management)? Thus, the writers show that entrepreneurs do not just learn when they are in contact with a role model. They also learn from observing role models when placed back into distinct social contexts and linked to two symbolic stages of the entrepreneurial process (before and after the creation of a company) with a view to accomplishing the tasks linked to entrepreneurial learning. The nature of the relationship of influence between the environment and entrepreneurial learning defined here is dynamic and based on social interaction between individuals/environment/learning.

In their article entitled ‘Expertise, university infrastructure and approaches to new venture creation: Assessing students who start businesses’, Shirokova, Osiyevskyy, Morris & Bogatyreva continue and go deeper into the work focused on the influence of universities that we analysed in the previous section. In a large-scale study, the writers show how the offer of entrepreneurship education from a university (scholarly and extra-curricular) influences how experienced and inexperienced students learn to become entrepreneurs. In this approach, the entrepreneurial context defined by the university’s training programme engenders several essential consequences. Firstly, the context influences not just the number of students who take an interest in entrepreneurship, but above all, their way of learning, in particular when they use effectual and causal logic. In the further work of Zahra, Newey, and Shaver (2011) concerning the influence of consulting advice on the design of entrepreneurship courses, Shirokova, Osiyevskyy, Morris & Bogatyreva widen the scope ⁵ and show the relation of influence more generally between the training programmes offered by the university, the resulting learning context, and students’ ways of learning about entrepreneurship. Secondly, the results of the study show that effectual and causal logic are closely bound and can be deployed simultaneously by the same entrepreneur according to the particular circumstances that shape the context. Thirdly, the writers highlight on the one hand, the growing recognition of ‘learning for entrepreneurship’ in universities’ academic and extracurricular training offers. On the other hand, this evolution brings back into question classical types of training compared to experience-based learning and extra-curricular activities that require greater personalisation of the training offer. Such personalisation takes into account the individual characteristics of the student and, more generally, the development of his or her social capital, allowing the acquisition of skills centred on knowing why as well as how. Thus, Shirokova, Osiyevskyy, Morris & Bogatyreva show with originality, on the basis of a large-scale study, how the social context defined by university programmes affect the learning process for students, especially on the combined mobilisation of effectual and causal logic adapted to the circumstances.

Next in the Special Edition Hahn, Minola, Van Gils & Huybrechts present a research paper entitled ‘Entrepreneurial learning at universities: Exploring multilevel contingencies’ using a sample from the GUESSS 2011 data base. They ask more general questions about the effects of entrepreneurial education on students’ actual learning. They investigate using human capital theory and three moderating variables: student experiences, the pedagogy applied to entrepreneurial initiatives, and knowledge of business opportunities in the country. The results observed show that being exposed to a succession of entrepreneurship courses has a positive effect, up to a point, on students’ entrepreneurship learning results. Beyond that point, students can no longer strengthen and actively build on their level of entrepreneurial knowledge. In effect, students develop a critical mind-set which leads them to depreciate what they have learned at university. Students who have previous entrepreneurial experience and universities that focus their pedagogical approach on the practical side of things, however, tend to push back the point of inflexion at which students begin to think negatively of entrepreneurship education. Finally, the diffusion of entrepreneurial opportunities leading to a heightened perception of required entrepreneurial capabilities more severely depreciates the human capital acquired by the students during their entrepreneurship training. This research shows that the interaction produced between entrepreneurial education (development of human capital) and the individual’s capacity to become an entrepreneur (development of active human capital) is not systematically positive. It depends in particular on the learning context defined by the individual (his or her experience), by the university’s teaching pedagogy and by the diffusion of business opportunities within the country. This research contributes to the development of our understanding about learning as a social construct (Lave and Wenger 1991), defined on the macro (the country), meso (university) and micro levels (the individual). It allows us to better understand the interplay of mutual influence between the environment (country, university) and the contingent development of the individual’s ability to become an entrepreneur that depends in large part on practical experience. Finally, it invites us to ask ourselves how to transform the relationships of unilateral influence (of the university on individual learning) into a more dynamic relationship of reciprocity, in such a way as to allow adaptation and greater personalisation of entrepreneurial education in line with the expectations of the student entrepreneur. In other words, they pose the question, how can the social construct of learning be made more efficient in order to avoid the risk of depreciating entrepreneurial education in the eyes of the student and his or her general motivation to become an entrepreneur?

Finally, Verzat, O’Shea & Jore present an article entitled ‘Teaching proactivity in the entrepreneurial classroom’ in which they study the effects of two different teaching situations (a course directed by the teacher and a self-directed course) that both use the two principles of experience-based learning ⁶ in the development of proactive attitudes. To carry out their survey, the writers use three key factors (collaborative team work, the creative mind-set of the group and positive emotions) and two variables (the group’s strength and emotion). They show that proactive attitude can be learnt through the use of a pedagogical framework based on Self-Directed Learning (SDL). In other words, Verzat, O’Shea & Jore highlight firstly that proactivity is not just an initial prerequisite for setting up a training course based on the use of self-directed learning (SDL): it can be a result of SDL education. Secondly, the results of their study show the existence of a reciprocal influence between the strength of the group ⁷ and the individual commitment: the more the individual perceives the group’s strength, the greater his or her commitment and vice versa. Thirdly, the writers underline the significant role played by emotions (negative and positive) in the development of proactivity. These emotions come from three levels: the individual (emotional self-efficiency), the team, and wider environment (via uncertainty and ambiguity of relationships with the learning environment and the outside world). The results highlight the idea that positive emotions (pride, pleasure, joy, excitement and surprise) are stronger in an SDL environment that in a ‘Teaching Directed’ environment dominated by anxiety and fear of failure.

This last article completes and extends the works carried out on the influence of educational initiatives on individual entrepreneurship learning. ⁸ There again, the writers’ analysis goes beyond observing the relationship of unilateral influence between the educational environment and individual learning. The use of SDL also strengthens the importance of the group taking control of its learning, reflexivity, and freedom to act under the impulse of positive emotions that are both prerequisites for and results of learning. The context of uncertainty (the results of learning are not predetermined or controlled by the teacher), relations with the external environment (important role of external stakeholders) and the pressure of pairing up (presentation in front of other students) constitute a learning situation that is socially constructed on the basis of a dynamic relationship of mutual influence with the individual.

4. Environment and entrepreneurial learning: a research agenda

Learning to become an entrepreneur is a process that feeds on experiences accumulated at university and through projects developed in everyday life. The entrepreneurship act seems to be the result of a more or less explicit and conscious process that involves one or more people in the decision to pursue entrepreneurship and to follow through on that decision. For more than forty years, researchers have been seeking to understand what determines the intention to choose entrepreneurship and going through with it. The intention transforms into actions when the individual commits to an active process of personal reflection and pragmatic action. That reflection is fuelled by the individual’s experiences, beliefs and visions. The action takes the form of meetings and decisions that feed reflection, leading to actions, in a circular, iterative and incremental movement. The development of entrepreneurial knowledge is a complex subject for study because it links the singularity of the individual with a social environment that offers variable, multidimensional and contextualised resources. Wanting to understand why an individual learns to become an entrepreneur also leads us to question the role and responsibility of the individual and the environment in the development of this learning process.

The contributions in our special edition open new directions for the development of scientific understanding. This development of knowledge, which clearly also leads to a greater awareness of our ignorance (Morin 2017), suggests that we build the foundations for a research agenda around four main themes:

(1)	The exploration of complementary and alternative pathways to the individualist and behaviourist approach that dominates research into entrepreneurship learning by taking more account of the effects of the group and cooperation
(2)	Seeking a multidisciplinary approach more often (particularly involving sociology, anthropology and education sciences) with a view to gaining a better understanding of the interactionist processes that play a role in the construction of social learning
(3)	Carrying out longitudinal research studies that would allow us to observe the twin transformation processes of the individual and the environment produced by the learning activity
(4)	Developing the production of knowledge in the ontological field (construction of meaning) of entrepreneurial learning.

Firstly, entrepreneurship education has mostly been studied from the individual angle. Insights from psychology, particularly the seminal works of Bandura (1977, 1985, 2001), have thereforeinfluenced research. The knowledge contributed by the articles chosen here also allow us to glimpse the extent of our ignorance if we consider learning as a localised social construct; an ignorance that gives rise to new questions - for example, can the individual’s social learning perimeter be defined? How can we observe the social construction process of entrepreneurial learning? How can we measure the relationships of mutual influence between the individual and the members of the environment with whom he or she interacts? How can we measure the effects of social learning on the acquisition of entrepreneurial skills? How can we link social learning and entrepreneurial skills? How can we measure the change produced by learning on the individual’s environment? How is the individual’s learning process evolving in his or her environment? Is social learning ephemeral, limited by the achievement of rational or sustainable objectives? And so on.

Secondly, study of the role played by the social environment in the entrepreneurial learning process, which is relatively recent, still suffers from a lack of work based on multidisciplinary contributions (Landström and Benner 2010; Landström and Lohrke 2010). For example, despite some notable general contributions, such as those by Aldrich et al. (2008; Bradley et al. 2011) or Clark (2001), the contributions of sociology have been little used, particularly works carried out on themes of interactionism, embodied notably by the works of Goffman (1970), Becker (1997) or Blumer (1986). In the same way, in keeping with the recent observations of Robinson and Shumar (2014), anthropology offers pertinent opportunities to better understand the social functioning of the learning process, particularly thanks to the pioneering works of Bateson (2000) and Mead (Howard 1989). In education science, certain precursory works highlight the importance of the development of the individual ‘in’ and ‘with’ his or her environment (Dewey 1916; Freinet 1993; Montessori 2016; Piaget 2001; Piaget and Inhelder 1969; Vygotsky [1934] 1962 ). These works have given rise, since the start of the 19th century (Rancière 2004) to the development of educational practices whose philosophy is built on action and localised cooperation.

Thirdly, the search for knowledge in the field of learning seen as a social construct clearly draws on socio-constructivism. This scientific orientation thus implies the carrying out of long-term surveys in order to follow the transformation process of individuals and the environment. A longitudinal approach, barely present in current management science research, but very present in the field of sociology and anthropology, is therefore required. At the same time, this socio-constructivist and longitudinal approach compels one to relativize the knowledge obtained. In effect, the observation of a social object – entrepreneurship learning – in its context does not allows generalisations to be made about the knowledge produced. It’s main aim is to generate localised, pragmatic information (Pierce 1878) as well as questions that will inspire other research on the principle of cross-fertilisation within the sciences (Kuhn 1996).

Fourthly, analysis using the conceptual model of Fayolle and Gailly (2008) of the 141 articles initially selected in our literature review for the period 1993–2016 clearly shows that a majority of research produced in the field of entrepreneurship learning is mostly centred on the question of ‘how’ to learn (58.2%) and ‘what’ to learn (56.7%). By contrast, the question relating to meaning, the ‘why’ learn, relates to less than 3% of articles (2.1%). Thus, renewing the data base does not transform the results produced by Byrne and Toutain (2012) and used by Fayolle (2013), who highlights the lack of scientific contributions concerning the ontological dimension of entrepreneurship education. Future exploration of the research field centred on learning as a localised social construct offers the opportunity to strengthen these two dimensions, i.e. multidisciplinarity on the one hand, and on the other hand, construction of individual and collective meaning given to entrepreneurship learning realised by the individual and his or her community of practice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Articles dealing with learning in organisations/firms were rejected due to the different level of analysis integrating organisational learning theories and company analysis.

2. Allowing for variants of the word ‘entrepreneurship’.

3. What are the common objectives of supporting entrepreneurship learning and what can be achieved?

4. Learning by observation of successful behaviour.

5. Sample based on GUESSS data (Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students’ Survey) and composed of 2179 student entrepreneurs in 26 countries.

6. Defined by the writers through the following elements: collaborative working groups, project learning, learning by doing and reflection.

7. Notably in order to create, take initiatives, risks and transform ideas into projects.

8. See Section 2.2.1.3.