Abstract
Reflections on the subject of ‘entrepreneurial learning’ come at regular intervals. The Handbook by Politis et al (2025) under review here reflects the significant growth in research on entrepreneurial learning in the last two decades, and the editors ‘see great value in taking stock of the developments so far and looking ahead to advance our knowledge’ (p. xiii). This follows a 2015 review of the field (Rae and Wang, 2015) with a similar aim of ‘taking stock of what work has been done, and [inviting] new perspectives and explorations in the field’ (p. 2), and a 2005 review (Harrison and Leitch, 2005) extended in 2008 (Harrison and Leitch, 2008), to address the ‘limited knowledge and understanding of the interaction of learning and the entrepreneurial process’ and provide ‘a systematic treatment of the interface between the entrepreneurship and organizational learning literatures’ (pp. 6, 17).
The Politis et al volume shares some common themes with the earlier reviews of the field. First, it argues that the field, which took off in the early 2000s, has significantly broadened in scope over the past two decades. This has led to an ‘increasingly diverse and fragmented knowledge base with an expanding number of small and specialised research themes’ (p.1) that are still highly fragmented. There is therefore, an increasing ‘need to synthesize and accumulate research developments and map interconnections across different subfields while at the same time acknowledging the value of scholarly diversity and context-sensitive theorizing’ (pp. 1–2). Second, it emphasises the contextualisation of entrepreneurial learning, and specifically aims to expand ‘scholarly knowledge about the multi-level contexts within which entrepreneurial learning develops and unfolds. . . as well as the theoretical lenses used to understand these contexts’ (p. 2). Third, it acknowledges the debt to the organisational learning literature more generally, as the source of constructs, conceptualisations and theoretical frameworks that may throw light on learning in the entrepreneurial context in particular. This organisational learning literature is both longer-standing and more comprehensive, and is marked by the publication of four major overviews (Cohen and Sproull, 1996; Dierkes et al., 2001; Easterby-Smith et al., 1999; Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003) which collectively include 109 chapters occupying over 2,500 pages. Fourth, it highlights the distinction between research into entrepreneurial learning processes in general in new ventures and established businesses on the one hand and research into entrepreneurship education and pedagogy on the other, a topic of growing interest as reflected in the establishment in 2018 of the journal Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, dedicated specifically to this topic.
Against this background, the editors of the Research Handbook use their Introduction to first review the emergence of entrepreneurial learning as a research field during the 1990s and early 2000s, and second, present an overview of contemporary entrepreneurial research using a bibliometric analysis of research published in the last 15 years. In terms of emergence, the editors associate entrepreneurial learning research with the emergence and growth of the entrepreneurship discipline and the rise of policy interest in supporting small and new ventures as the locus of economic development at the end of the 1980s and in the 1990s, although they do identify precursors to the entrepreneurial learning theme back to the early 1970s. Rae and Wang (2015) go further and trace these historical precedents back to Schumpeter and Kirzner. In accounting for the origins of the entrepreneurial learning field, this ‘claiming’ of precursors has similarities with Gorman’s (2007) distinction between a genre of discourse and a field of study in the strict sense. This distinction identifies precursors to a field as creative and may be seen by later scientists as paradigmatic of their later roles and so ‘adopted’ by the later community (Gorman, 2007, 55). Notwithstanding these early precursors, the editors attribute ‘the beginning of entrepreneurial learning research as we know it today’ (p. 5) to the landmark publication of a Special Issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (Harrison and Leitch, 2005), subsequently expanded as an edited book (Harrison and Leitch, 2008), focused on the learning processes in entrepreneurial and small business contexts.
Against this background, the editors review the state of research on entrepreneurial learning, using a bibliometric analysis of research published between 2007 and 2023, intending to ‘consolidate[s] the literature regarding the knowledge base and the ongoing conversations shaping the research domain’ (p. 6). Overall, 527 refereed journal articles were included in the analysis (as is common in bibliometric and citation studies, publications in the form of working papers, book chapters and conference papers were excluded from the analysis); however, in using the Scopus database there was no restriction of the search process to ‘top’ journals (e.g., Web of Science listed journals).
A number of conclusions about the evolution of the entrepreneurial learning research field can be drawn from this bibliometric analysis. First, there has been a steady increase in publications, particularly after 2013, to around 70 papers annually. Second, these publications appear in a wide range of journals, including entrepreneurship; notably, Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy (15 articles) and the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research (28 articles), confirming the important role played by this journal in the early evolution of the entrepreneurial learning field (Rae and Wang 2015, p. 1). Articles on entrepreneurial learning can also be found in general education-oriented journals, such as Industry and Higher Education (32 articles) and Education+Training (30 articles). Third, although the ‘mainstream’ entrepreneurship journals each accounted for a relatively small proportion of the database, their academic impact (measured as the ratio of the share of citations to the share of articles) was disproportionate:
Fourth, a co-citation analysis of the database identifies three closely connected clusters of references: theoretical perspectives on entrepreneurial learning and the role of individual and organisational actors; the processes and mechanisms of entrepreneurial learning and the role of communities of practice and social relationships in shaping the learning process; and entrepreneurial education as a means of cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets, skills and behaviours. Fifth, a keyword co-occurrence analysis identifies a loose clustering of research themes in the literature. Some of these (cognition and behaviour, intentions, alertness, organisational learning) show continuity with early research themes in the field; others (gender, COVID-19, collaboration and communities) are newly emerging areas of interest.
The overriding impression from this analysis is a confirmation of the diversity of the conceptual and integrative frameworks used to explore the nuances of entrepreneurial learning as a vibrant but fragmented intellectual landscape. In an attempt to impose some coherence on the field and provide a guide to the opportunities for further development, the book is divided into four sections.
Section 1 – Conceptual and Integrative Frameworks – presents a number of studies of the dynamics of organisational learning in very diverse contexts (intraorganizational learning (Galan, Chapter 2), social entrepreneurship (Di Gregorio et al., Chapter 3), and entrepreneurial education evaluation programmes (Le Pontois and Foliard, Chapter 4). Collectively, these chapters demonstrate the interactions between external factors, in the form of embeddedness and the situated nature of entrepreneurial learning, and the internal dynamics of identity, motivation and self-efficacy and their shaping of learning trajectories and the complexity of entrepreneurial learning outcomes. This is extended in this section’s final two very different chapters.
First, Khurana and Dutta (Chapter 5) apply the 4i learning framework (Intuiting, Interpreting, Integrating, Institutionalising) to the evolution of the entrepreneurial ecosystem through learning. This provides a multilevel assessment of the venture creation process by examining both intra-organisational and inter-organisational processes and dynamics at individual, group, organisational, and ecosystem levels. In addition to the direct impact of learning processes in shaping the evolution of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, Khurana and Dutta also develop research propositions around learning discontinuities, learning heterogeneity, the cumulative nature of entrepreneurial learning and learning inhibitors and facilitators. There is much here to stimulate further research by both entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial ecosystem scholars, subject to three caveats: one, the discussion is agnostic as regards the scale at which these learning effects are observed, one manifestation of the entrepreneurial ecosystem as a chaotic conception based on drawing distinctions in the absence of substantive differences (Harrison and Rocha 2024; Harrison 2025); two, many of these ideas have been previously articulated in the ‘learning regions’ and related literatures (for example, on industrial districts, clusters, flexible specialisation, knowledge spillovers, and innovation systems) which maintains that the capacity to learn increasingly determines the relative position of individuals, firms and national systems (Asheim, 1996; Polenske, 2008, 138–140); and three, there remains a challenge in terms of operationalising empirically the conceptual framework developed in this article.
Second, Kurczewska (Chapter 6) explores the notion of the entrepreneurial learning process as the transformation of experience into knowledge, and identifies this with the philosophical notion of prudence as the process of making sound (i.e. based on valid reasoning) and ethical judgements in complex situations. This is consistent with an ‘ethical turn’ in entrepreneurship more generally, and with the exploration of concepts such as compassion, love and the ethics of care as part of the association of entrepreneurship with the creation of the good society. Prudence serves to translate experience into knowledge and, further, to translate this into a sound and ethical entrepreneurial venture (p. 99). Although not developed in detail, the conclusion of the article suggests that the adoption of a prudence perspective can combat the instrumentalism of entrepreneurship education by combining the knowledge and practice of moral principles and also developing a self-awareness of learning that transcends purely professional training.
Section 2 – Cognitions and Behaviours – includes four chapters that address the long-standing interest in entrepreneurial learning scholarship in cognition and learning behaviours, and specifically those associated with the opportunity development process. Using a variety of research methods in a diverse range of contexts, the chapters in this section report on learning asymmetries in the interface between prior knowledge and entrepreneurial opportunity perception using a quasi-experimental research methodology framed in terms of Kolb’s learning cycle (Kakouris et al., Chapter 7), the relationship between professional identity and the entrepreneurial learning of nursing entrepreneurs, using life-story interviews (Neergärd and Aadland, Chapter 8), the learning processes involved in the opportunity development trajectories of seven nascent entrepreneur participants in an entrepreneurship education programme as evidenced from a qualitative diary methodology (Opizzi et al., Chapter 9), and the role of entrepreneurial learning in facilitating reflection and behavioural changes in a longitudinal study of five start-ups in the tourism sector (Solvoll et al., Chapter 10).
Section 3 – Collaborations and Communities – includes four chapters which examine how the social and situational nature of entrepreneurial learning influences its processes and outcomes. Reflecting the diversity of entrepreneurial learning research themes and methodologies, these chapters review how learning takes place through action learning sets in an entrepreneurial leadership development programme (Anderson and MacPherson, Chapter 11), the longitudinal evaluation of collaborative learning in entrepreneurial communities (Delanoë-Gurguen and Gueguen, Chapter 12), the assessment of the impact of entrepreneurs’ social skills on entrepreneurial learning processes, entrepreneurial outcomes and the entrepreneur’s ability to leverage social networks and new knowledge effectively (Lamine et al., Chapter 13), and the psychosocial and career-related role of mentoring in supporting entrepreneurial learning, including discussion of the negative implications of gender stereotyping (St-Jean and Meddeb, Chapter 14). It is clear from these chapters that while there is a place for formal learning through established structures and managed learning communities, much learning is informal and takes place vicariously. As such, vicarious entrepreneurial learning is a social and situated practice that draws on the development and application of cognitive and relational social capital. However, much of the entrepreneurial-learning literature is implicitly or explicitly embedded in a universalist assumption that while the context may determine the specifics of what is learned and how it is learned, the underlying assumption is that the underlying processes are similar: the discussion of gender stereotyping points to the need for a more explicit examination of the role of gender and other intersectionalities in the entrepreneurial learning process.
Section 4—Pedagogies and Curricula—comprises four chapters that examine empirically and conceptually the role of pedagogical and curricular perspectives on entrepreneurial learning. These include two chapters that examine specific aspects of entrepreneurial education, the role of games (Hermans et al., Chapter 16) and assessment practices (Kenny et al, Chapter 18), and two that take a broadly emancipatory approach to entrepreneurial learning, applying Freire’s model to develop an emancipatory learning framework for South African townships (Felix-Faure and Fayolle, Chapter 15), and exploring the implications of distance in terms of geography, economics and power asymmetries for adapting and translating an entrepreneurship education programme to local contexts and indigenous practices in Madagascar (Tixier, Chapter 17). This points to the possibility, indeed desirability, of a more radical approach, based on the ‘cognitive injustice’ of the exclusion of knowledge from the Global South (Santos, 2014). The end of ‘the cognitive empire’ (Santos, 2018) of the Global North and the countervailing epistemologies of the Global South requires the integration of and response to the voice of the Global South in a decolonialised entrepreneurship: ‘the understanding of the world by far exceeds the Western understanding of the world . . . there is no global social justice without global cognitive justice . . . [and] . . . the emancipatory transformations of the world may follow grammars and scripts other than those developed by Western-centric critical theory’ (Santos, 2018: viii). This remains a major challenge for how we understand and develop entrepreneurial pedagogies and curricula, and for how we conceptualise entrepreneurial learning more generally.
Overall, this is a stimulating and thought-provoking collection of papers that reflects the diversity of contemporary entrepreneurial learning scholarship, and the authors are to be congratulated on their efforts in assembling it. That said, the book also demonstrates that diversity in research topics and approaches continues to be reflected in the fragmentation of the field. In their Introduction, the editors begin to identify some areas of overlap and potential synergy that could be developed. If there is one reservation I have about the book, it is the absence of a concluding chapter by the editors. This could elaborate on the implications of the bibliometric work reported in the Introduction for reducing this fragmentation and develop some of the wider issues, such as gender, intersectionality and post-colonial theorising, which is raised in several of the chapters, and which, I believe, will be at the core of debates in entrepreneurial learning in the 2035 collection of ‘state of the art’ reviews of the field.
