Abstract
In this ethnographic research, we explore the entrepreneurial narratives performed by entrepreneurs (from outside academia) as desirable identity-building models for Finnish university students during an Entrepreneurship Week course. We also reflect on the accessibility of these identity models for students in terms of gender, class, and education. Our analysis shows that, although the entrepreneurs were positioned as role models for all students, through performances of masculine entrepreneurial identities with certain kinds of special talents and social divisions between groups (i.e., female entrepreneurs, wageworkers, and researchers in ivory towers), it was apparent that not all university students are entrepreneurial types. In addition, the performed narratives challenged the traditional interpretations of what it means to be an academically educated graduate in working life (e.g., in terms of upward mobility). We conclude that Entrepreneurship Week was more about training an entrepreneurial workforce than acquiring skills needed in business. Our study provides a critical perspective both on how neoliberal governance operates in entrepreneurship education and on what kinds of entrepreneurial identities future higher education graduates should possess. We suggest that academics should take an active role in creating more inclusive narratives and identity-building models for academic entrepreneurship.
Keywords
Introduction
As in many other countries in Europe, Finnish higher education (HE) has witnessed a market-oriented turn in which universities are expected to become active economic players (Ylijoki, 2014). This phenomenon has become to be known, among other labels, as academic entrepreneurship. It is generally taken to refer to the linking of research to commercial outcomes, such as the marketization of research innovations, but also includes other activities aimed at strengthening academia–business ties, such as entrepreneurship capacity-building through education (Shore & McLauchlan, 2012). As one consequence of this market-oriented turn, HE institutions are encouraged to equip university students with entrepreneurial skills and mindsets by integrating entrepreneurship education (EE) as an overarching theme in the curriculum in all fields (Laalo, Kinnari, & Silvennoinen, 2019). The objectives of EE in universities have been perceived as threefold (Heinonen & Hytti, 2010): teaching about entrepreneurship (studying entrepreneurship as an academic subject), teaching for entrepreneurship (acquiring the skills needed in business), and teaching through entrepreneurship (training an entrepreneurial workforce).
We approach EE in universities from a neoliberal governance point of view. According to Rose (1992), governmentality refers to the complex and heterogeneous ways in which contemporary social authorities have sought to shape and regulate economic, social, and personal activities. In governmentality research, the exercise of political power is explored along three interlinked dimensions: mentalities of government, human technologies, and technologies of the self which operate through subjects. At different levels of the education system, EE could be seen as human technology reflecting the neoliberal mentality of governance, which aims at transforming the passive citizens of welfare societies into active enterprising selves (Berglund, Lindgren, & Packendorff, 2017; Komulainen, Korhonen, & Räty, 2009). While we start from the point that academic entrepreneurship (and EE as one aspect of it) is a manifestation of neoliberal governance in HE (as well as the macro-context of this present research), we argue that there are only a few empirical studies exploring the practices of neoliberal governance at the grassroots, day-to-day level of HE. Therefore, in this ethnographic study, we take a critical stance toward EE by making explicit the everyday narrative activity in the context of the Entrepreneurship Week course through which entrepreneurial identities are constructed and promoted as a model for all HE students in a Finnish HE institution.
Critical research on entrepreneurship in university education has been marginal, despite the growing topicality of the issue (Laalo et al., 2019). We suggest that it is important to make explicit the entrepreneurial identities promoted in EE. This is because teaching students about, for, and through entrepreneurship might have contradictory consequences both for universities and for students representing different positions, as well as reinforcing social power structures and hierarchies. Although in current Western societies, entrepreneurship has come to stand out as a key identity in which individuals are increasingly encouraged to participate (Farny, Frederiksen, Hannibal, & Jones, 2016), entrepreneurship has been typically understood as something that is both extraordinary and highly different from salaried employment. Entrepreneurs have been portrayed as positive agents of the capitalist system, and as possessing personality attributes and abilities such as a need for achievement, dominance, and independence (Hytti, 2005). Feminist researchers (Bruni, Gherardi, & Poggio, 2005; Gill, 2014; Hytti, 2005) have argued that entrepreneurship as a concept is historically based on bourgeois values and that hegemonic masculinity is embodied in the figure of the entrepreneur. The ideal individual qualities of an entrepreneur have been defined according to a set norm that has excluded feminine characteristics and justified middle class and masculine values as bases for entrepreneurship. According to Jones (2014), masculinized constructions of the entrepreneur underpin the suggested abilities, skills, and behaviors that EE in HE seeks to develop.
Moreover, as stated earlier in this article, EE seeks to develop not only abilities and behaviors needed in business, also to train an entrepreneurial workforce (Laalo et al., 2019). From the latter point of view, EE could be seen as career guidance that places entrepreneurship as one of the key competencies of career management. It is argued, first, that university graduates need entrepreneurial skills and attitudes in future working life because academically educated people’s traditional routes into employment (i.e., the public sector and large companies) have diminished significantly. Entrepreneurship has been seen as offering new employment possibilities as well as models for creating flexible careers (Nurmi & Paasio, 2007). Second, as educational “returns” and outcomes are increasingly measured by working life relevance, the value of a degree and its role in the recruitment process has been questioned at the expense of other forms of personal and social capital (Nilsson, 2010). It has been suggested that, in order to convince potential employers of their worth, future graduates will need to become active and autonomous enterprising individuals (i.e., employable subjects; Siivonen, 2017).
Pongratz and Voß (2003) refer to this employable subject using the concept of the entreployee, which they highlight as a new social model of the workforce, replacing the vocational employee model that has been predominant in Western societies. Whereas the vocational employee’s career has been based on continuous professional advancement in terms of position, power, income, and job security, the entreployee is the architect of their own fortune. However, this kind of employable subject is a middle-class construction and thus the accessibility of this model varies for individuals in different social positions (Siivonen, 2017).
The market-oriented turn in universities (and EE as one concrete manifestation of it) challenges, in many ways, the traditional interpretations of what it means to be academically educated university student and a future HE graduate in working life (Laalo et al., 2019). 1 This study is part of a wider research project contributing to this discussion by taking an ethnographic look at EE and exploring, at the day-to-day level of HE, a specific course for Finnish university students, Entrepreneurship Week. 2 In terms of its educational function, Entrepreneurship Week served as a novel and exceptional means of introducing entrepreneurship to universities. It exemplified entrepreneurial learning by extending the teacher role to individuals outside academia (i.e., external entrepreneurs) and by encouraging students to participate in entrepreneurial activities (see Pittaway, Rodriquez-Falcon, Aiyegbayo, & King, 2010). In this research, we focus on these external entrepreneurs as lecturers and coaches and, in particular, on the entrepreneurial narratives that they performed during the Entrepreneurship Week as a desirable identity-building model for future HE graduates.
Our aim is to examine how entrepreneurial identities are performed in EE and to reflect on the accessibility of these identities and the possible consequences these performances have for students and for the teaching of entrepreneurship in universities. We first explore what kinds of entrepreneurial narratives (with entrepreneurial identities and representations of the future world of work) entrepreneurs produced for the university students during Entrepreneurship Week. How did the entrepreneurs, in their role as lecturers and coaches, position themselves and their companies and construct their identity? Second, we approach these performed identities as models for both future entrepreneurs and for an entrepreneurial workforce and reflect on the accessibility of these identities by exploring whether they are gendered and classed, and in what ways, and reflect how the value of academic education is constructed in the narratives.
In the following section, we specify our methodological approach. In the third section, we describe the Entrepreneurship Week as the context and setting of the study as well as the methods of data collection and analysis. After this, we present the results of the analysis based on the typology of entrepreneurial narratives, and in the final section, we discuss the potential consequences of the narrative performances of Entrepreneurship Week for students representing different positions and for academic education in general.
Identities Created Through Narratives
Our approach to Entrepreneurship Week is narrative ethnography, which is defined by Gubrium and Holstein as follows: “Accommodating naturalistic, constructionist, and ethnomethodological impulses and concerns, the approach focuses on the everyday narrative activity that unfolds within circumstantially situated social interaction, with an acute awareness of the myriad layers of social context that condition narrative production” (Gubrium & Holstein, 2008, p. 251). Within this interactionally oriented approach, identities are seen as firmly grounded in specific social processes and narrative practices. According to de Fina (2015), the focus of this perspective is not on the narrators’ ability to create coherent identity (as in the biographical perspective in narratives), but on the process of identity performances (the strategies used by the narrator in making identity claims in a certain situation). We refer to such strategies with the variable use of certain linguistic procedures and positioning strategies to do self-presentation (Korobov & Bamberg, 2004). According to Korobov and Bamberg (2004), positioning analysis focuses both on what the talk is about and on storytelling as an interactive situation. It makes the interactive site of storytelling the empirical ground where identities come into existence and are interactively displayed.
Moreover, we understand entrepreneurial narratives as occupational stories. As such, they are told in educational contexts as exemplars for novices, but also to construct and ratify group membership and to convey collective values and norms (Cortazzi, 2001). Occupational stories create and reproduce models of competent behaving and feeling for members of the group (see Illouz, Gilon, & Shachak, 2014). Thus, in our analysis, we are interested in how entrepreneurs make identity claims in their narratives by constructing social categorizations and professional in-group/out-group boundaries. Our study is also inspired by social identity theory (SIT), originally developed by the social psychologist Henry Tajfel (1981). More recently, studies using SIT have been conducted from linguistic perspectives. Social identities and the related group divisions, then, are not merely seen as cognitive but as outcomes of narrators’ action. Van De Mieroop (2015) argues that SIT considers groups and categories to be entities residing in individuals which are always latently present, although they are not continuously activated. This study, instead, highlights the performed nature and fluidity of social groups during constant interactional negotiation and their bases on ever-shifting criteria of group membership (Van De Mieroop, 2015).
Data and Methods: An Ethnographic Look at Entrepreneurship Week
K. K., P. S., and K. K. participated in the events held during the Entrepreneurship Week both as researchers and as audience members in the lecturers’ presentations. They made observations, took field notes, and photographed the presentation slides. In addition, the data include online data related to the week, photos from different events, notes from informal discussions, documents, and discussions and interviews of student participants. This article focuses on field notes from lectures by entrepreneurs, photos of their textual presentations, and online data from the week.
The Entrepreneurship Week was organized mainly by the local Entrepreneurship Society. It arranged the week in cooperation with a local university applied sciences (UAS), 3 a local enterprises association, a regional development company, a public employment services, a science park, and a business incubator. According to Pittaway et al. (2010), entrepreneurship societies are a widespread phenomenon. Although their role in EE is widely recognized, there is only limited research on the subject (see, however, Siivonen, Peura, Hytti, Kasanen, & Komulainen, 2019). They are nonprofit organizations with educational goals, run on a voluntary basis, and are largely made up of and managed by HE students. Such societies aim to inspire students to consider entrepreneurship as a career, and they focus on encouraging an entrepreneurial mindset by offering students opportunities to build networks or get feedback from experienced entrepreneurs (Farny & Kyrö, 2015; Siivonen et al., 2019).
Finnish HE includes both universities and UASs, and about 120 students in total from both types of university participated in the Entrepreneurship Week course. 4 The themes of the week were inspiration, success, trendiness, and opportunities. The official program included lectures, bulletins, a business breakfast, workshops, practical sessions, and an innovation competition. The unofficial program, which included a cocktail party and other specific times and spaces for networking, was an important part of the course.
The Entrepreneurship Week consisted of 19 lectures—or as we see it, entrepreneurial narratives—given by 3 female and 16 male entrepreneurs. At the beginning of their speech, the entrepreneurs introduced themselves and their firms by presenting their work history and the key information about their company (i.e., year of foundation, history, business area, turnover, and business partners). Eight of the lecturers were start-up entrepreneurs from the fields of IT consulting, mobile devices, and IT applications, and two of these start-up entrepreneurs also had side businesses in the field of bicycle repair, carpentry, and fishing tours. Three of the lecturers worked as management consultants, three as merchants, one in the field of agritourism, and one in a cooperative in the field of education and media services. Three of the lecturers were former entrepreneurs who acted as entrepreneurship coaches. However, the majority of the lecturers were profit-maximization entrepreneurs.
In our analysis, we focused on the stories from different entrepreneurs, which dealt mainly with their own experiences. Our analysis started from a thematic reading of the entrepreneurial narratives. Based on the earlier research, we explored the similarities and differences between the story types and started to construct a typology of the narratives. In this phase, we found the typology developed by Ellen O’Connor (2002) very useful because it enabled us to analyze not only identities produced through biographical narratives but also those produced through different kinds of entrepreneurial narratives. In her ethnographic study in a high technology start-up, O’Connor identified three main types of narratives and subcategories: personal stories (with the subgroups of founding and vision stories pertaining to the individual life of the entrepreneur and the company founder; these personal narratives build credibility for both success of the entrepreneur as an individual and for the success of the firm), generic stories (which can be marketing or strategic stories, and are similar to those required by conventional documents such as the business plan), and situational stories (which construct broader temporal and spatial storylines in which the company is located).
We classified our data according to the abovementioned typology. However, we realized that the models of proceeding in business were also expressed through slogans in our data (see Down & Warren, 2008), and thus we also focused on them in the analysis. After classifying the narratives, we applied narrative positioning analysis to the data (Bamberg, 2011). We explored positioning in the level of the story and analyzed how the referential world was constructed in narratives, with characters emerging in time and space as protagonists and antagonists. How were the characters—both individuals and groups—described, with attributes and positioned in relation to one another, within reported events, and within certain kinds of temporal and spatial contexts or “zeitgeists”? In this phase, we paid special attention to the ways in which the lecturers constructed social categories and social divisions between groups. In addition, we also reflected positioning on the level of the interaction by paying attention to how the speakers positioned themselves to the audience and with regard to hegemonic (i.e., gendered and classed) narratives of entrepreneurship (Bamberg, 2011). We will now turn to the narrative performances of Entrepreneurship Week and the personal, generic, and situational stories that emerged during this time.
Personal Stories: The Founder Narrative
During Entrepreneurship Week, the overall atmosphere was very different from that usually prevailing in university courses—an enthusiastic buzz pervaded, with students exchanging high-five gestures, networking, hanging out, and mingling. The week was a combination of education, conference, and festival. Storytelling was—as mentioned in the advertisement here—a central pedagogical tool during the week: Extract 1: Entrepreneurship Week is a four-day entrepreneurial event mainly for students. It offers inspiration and tools for self-employment, and much more. During the week you’ll hear stories from different entrepreneurs and get concrete tools and knowledge about entrepreneurship. The week highlights the path from idea to successful business. (Advertisement for the Entrepreneurship Week on the Entrepreneurship Society website, online data)
5
Extract 2: Many of us don’t have the courage or the will (to become an entrepreneur) because it’s much safer to be part of the mass, you can be part of the group. There are no risks and you wanna stay in your own comfort zone, because it’s dangerous to depart from there […] As an entrepreneur you have the freedom to choose. (Field notes)
During Entrepreneurship Week, the lecturing entrepreneurs presented personal stories about their life and work history (O’Connor, 2002). In our analysis, we identified two entrepreneurial identity constructions: the dominant narrative of heroic entrepreneur and the humane female entrepreneur (see also Hytti & Heinonen, 2013). In the heroic stories that we illustrate here, the genre of the narratives was romance, with the focus on the individual protagonist and/or his teams’ adventures as they conquered the “evil forces.” These evils were, for example, “bureaucracy,” “competition” or “inability to overcome one’s comfort zone” (field notes).
The keynote lecturer of the week was a young male entrepreneur, Paul, who had become famous on Finnish TV and especially on Finnish social media. We interpret that he performed the narrative identity of heroic entrepreneur. He started his presentation by asking how many people from the audience knew who he was and were familiar with his firm. Nearly everybody raised their hands. He continued to tell his personal story: Extract 3: In 2000, my goal was the biggest village store in Lapland. 600 inhabitants in the village, target size of the shopping center 5900 m2. My belief in the project was strong. There needed to be an Alko (off-licence)
6
in the shopping center that would draw all the top retailers there. I called the CEO of Alko and got an appointment, I didn’t want to bother with the smaller bosses. The CEO promised me that if my crazy idea pulls off there will be an Alko at my shopping center. And so I had a preliminary agreement and 20 retailers running in the same swamp. My emerging acting talents were needed as I had to talk my way into getting 10 million euros for the project. The hoe went into the soil in summer 2007. (Entrepreneur’s lecture, quote from Paul, field notes)
In addition to presenting himself as a special person, Paul also depicted himself as “one of us,” as we see in the following field note: Extract 4: I dreamt of a career as a rock star or actor. My mum said no actor, [get] a proper job. I went to school an hour earlier than the others—so I could copy my homework from the teacher’s book. A strong basis for an academic career. In secondary school the same thing continued. In ninth grade (last grade of comprehensive school), my math grade was 4 (fail), but I passed the year and started sixth form. I kept on killing time until I couldn’t carry on any longer. I turned 18 and left to see the world. I did everything I could with the papers (qualifications) I had. Then puberty was over and I returned [to my home village]. My mother gave me some small responsibilities in her store. [Describes his mishaps on his pathway as an entrepreneur, about his success, and marketing tricks that got wide attention in the media]. I can’t fake that I’m an educated suit (businessman wearing a suit). I’ve learned to use my personality. I am what I am. (Entrepreneur’s lecture, quote from Paul, field notes)
During Entrepreneurship Week, lecturers also presented personal narratives of failed businesses. Like the narrative of heroic entrepreneur, these were told within the interpretive framework of romance. In the narratives, failures were described in a positive light, and bankruptcy was portrayed not as a downfall but as a minor complication along the way: Extract 5: We tried to save the business for three years. My own firm had always been my employer. I was playing Deep Purple to the max one day when I suddenly “got” it. I was sitting in the office with its furniture all bought from a bankruptcy estate. It hit me that a business is like a rock band. I had been the figurehead of the band, and the products the band’s albums. Just like playing (guitar) after the band breaks up is nothing to be ashamed of, why on earth should you be ashamed after the breakup of a business? Deep Purple had broken up for years. I wasn’t a failure, but the director of a successful band that just didn’t exist anymore. (Entrepreneur’s lecture, quote from Patrick, field notes)
The second type of personal narratives (those related to humane entrepreneurship) were stories about small business owners located in the fields of agritourism, education, and media services. Extract 6: I consider myself a lone-working person and I like doing all kinds of cool stuff in my evenings. Animated films, videos, photography and editing are my passion. Work is part of my identity, and I don’t think of work as a compulsory burden but as part of a versatile and rewarding life. Even though I like being on my own, I get new energy when I work, especially with children and young people. (Leila’s webpages/online data)
In summary, on the one hand, the personal stories construct the entrepreneur as a masculine high-achieving hero (despite transient failures), with special characteristics, and a “hands-on,” practical, “self-made man.” On the other hand, narratives of humane entrepreneurship perform a cultural portrait of entrepreneurial action that has been represented as feminine and “located in ghettos within entrepreneurship” (Bruni et al., 2005, p. 260). We suggest that, as a role model, the figure of the heroic entrepreneur might be more inviting for male students than for female students. Because the female entrepreneur does not occupy a desirable position in the context of entrepreneurship, it might be more difficult for female graduates to identify themselves with it (Hytti & Heinonen, 2013; Komulainen et al., 2009). However, as a career model, the narrative of humane entrepreneurship might be more tempting because it promises the middle-class possibility of “becoming somebody” through creative self-realization at work (Farrugia, 2019; Scharff, 2016).
Strategic and Marketing Stories: Managing Social Relations as a Formula for Success
According to O’Connor (2002), generic narratives are templates that describe the overall planning, launching, and growing of the company. Strategic stories concretely present the trajectory of the company from launch to success. Marketing stories, in contrast, plot the company against the competition and illustrate its superiority.
The experienced entrepreneurs delivered business strategy advice and warnings while telling their personal stories. For example, Sebastian made the audience aware of the steps on the “success ladder” of his firm as follows: Extract 7: Success ladder. Enthusiasm and desire to work; Work as a way of life beyond the 9 to 5; Ability to withstand disappointments; Ability to change and the courage to invest and expand; Collaboration with personnel; Keeping promises to customers; Being visible through social media. (entrepreneur’s lecture, photo of Sebastian’s slide)
In the strategic stories, this formula was modified to accommodate new kinds of demands on the entrepreneur for media and social engagement and for collaboration with different kinds of stakeholders. However, in the entrepreneurial narratives, the aim of social engagement was not only presented as collaboration. In the marketing stories, social relations were portrayed as instrumental, and the entrepreneur as a calculating actor in these relations. The experienced entrepreneurs taught the audience “how to give a killer pitch” (i.e., how to construct a convincing marketing story for investors, clients, and customers). The instruction for the pitch was to “Tell your story (lasting 1–3 minutes) and tell it right. You’re bound to gain attention, and the funding will follow. Leave them wanting more” (pitching practice, a quote from Robert). Extract 8: Wake up! You have 10 seconds to engage your audience! My name is … Briefly—max 3 sentences. Problem: The problem you solve and who you solve it for. Solution: Your solution with compelling benefits—product 30 seconds, 1 catch-phrase. Market: Proof that your customers need and love your product. Money: How much money you will make—and how much you need. Team: Your team has the experience and expertise needed—it can never be just you! Timeline: Milestones, actuals, plans, hopes. Q & A (pitching practice, photo of Robert’s slide).
In addition to strategic and marketing narratives, templates of doing successful business (O’Connor, 2002) were also constructed through slogans (see Down & Warren, 2008; i.e., phrases that encapsulate the teachings of entrepreneurs and make them more memorable). During the Entrepreneurship Week, slogans such as “Easy is boring,” “Fall down seven times, stand up eight,” “Common sense is king,” “Everyone can make it,” “Self-confidence, belief that you’re the best, is all you need,” and “If you don’t build your dreams, someone will hire you to build theirs” were presented (field notes and photos, online data).
Through these strategic and marketing narratives and slogans, the entrepreneur was positioned as a self-reliant person who avoids talking the easy route, is courageous and motivated to compete and conquer, and is also skillful at persuading others. According to Ahl (2004, pp. 127, 129–130), these are psychological characteristics that have traditionally been associated with masculinity and which have formed the norm of the successful entrepreneur. However, the entrepreneur was not presented as a lone island (Ahl, 2004, p. 163); instead, in the narratives, starting and running a business was seen to demand other people, coworkers, customers, and networks. In addition, the performances produced a middle-class entrepreneurial mindset as a model for all employees (for whom work should be a realm of self-expression and self-realization, and for whom success in working life should be available not through formal education but through self-confidence and constant endeavor; Gill, 2014). Even if the development of relational competencies (i.e., sociability and emotional expressiveness) are seen critical attributes for all contemporary workers regardless of their social positions (Farrugia, 2019), we suggest that students who aim to realize their future selves in professional employment (and for whom university degree legitimizes their expert position in the labor market) may find it difficult to fit in the performed passionate entrepreneurial identities.
Situational Stories: The Postnormal Era Is Here!
Situational narratives serve as broader temporal and spatial storylines in which the story of a business, or of entrepreneurship, is located. They paint a picture of economic trends, competitive pressures, and technological and marketplace evolution (O’Connor, 2002). For example, Adam presented himself as a “serendipity expert” and encouraged the audience “to be open to possibilities,” “get out of your comfort zone,” and to take entrepreneurship “as the philosophy of life.” He deepened his ideas by presenting a PowerPoint slide on “Pipeline-thinking” and “Platform-thinking.” He referred to the latter as a “postnormal era” in order to differentiate it from the old “pipeline” industry.
In telling his narrative, Adam stressed that “the rules of the game” in business will change in the future and that the things being taught now represent the “normal era” (and are thus already outdated knowledge in the “postnormal era”). He associated such phenomena as large firms led by directors who “command” and “control” or climbing bureaucratic “career” ladders in certain “regional” or “national” institutions, with a passé, pipeline way of working. In the new platform world, by contrast, the hierarchical principles of firms and management weaken, and organizations become “flexible” and “creative” (field notes, photo of Adam’s slide). According to Adam, the entrepreneur-like worker—or the “entreployee” (Pongratz & Voß, 2003)—should have “new and unique combinations of competencies” that make them appeal “globally” and should “allocate their talents” to “competence platforms” by engaging in “collaboration” with others (field notes, photo of Adam’s slide).
Alongside the platform world of work situational narrative, one lecturer portrayed his life as being comprised of a series of different but valuable projects: Extract 9: The entrepreneur thinks about success: “I don’t make money, I get a salary. I have three enterprises [and still] problems with paying my mortgage. Success cannot be measured by income; can it be measured by the number of businesses and projects you have? Or by the fact that you survive?” In addition, he lists his side projects: “Free photos for marketing; membership of the local Young Entrepreneurs Association; and raising my daughter, who determines when I work. I’m with my child from four to bedtime and I work when she’s sleeping.” The speaker shows a slide entitled “How do I manage with these projects? How do I find time?” In an answer to these questions, he says: “Clear responsibilities; No CEO position; Focus on strong skills; Have people work for you; Try a lot, learn a lot, and apply what you learn in new business contexts.” (Entrepreneur’s lecture, a quote from Matthew, field notes)
In summary, the situational narratives constructed models for creating and acting in flexible careers. The narratives challenged the value of bureaucratic form of organization, conventional managerial hierarchy, and experts in their positions due to specialization, as well as wage workers (i.e., the principles of a workforce of vocational employees; Pongratz & Voß, 2003). Instead, in the new world of work, the individual was presented as the bearer of their own capital. They must constantly seek to maximize their self-value by “allocating talents” and by “applying learning” in new contexts. Beyond just teaching students skills needed in business, situational narratives perform an ideal employee, who enhances an existing organization through entrepreneurial behavior (Laalo et al., 2019). We suggest that such performances might have raised insecurity and self-doubt (see Scharff, 2016), especially among those students who have traditionally become employees in the public sector or in positions demanding specialized knowledge.
Situational stories constructed broader temporal and spatial contexts for entrepreneurial action. During one lecture, the nature of the universities as contexts of such an action was negotiated and the social category of academic entrepreneur
7
stimulated ambivalent discussion: Extract 10: Someone from the audience asked the lecturer Dan (who besides working as an entrepreneur was preparing a dissertation in IT): “Which one would you choose, an academic career or entrepreneurship?” Dan replied: “Academic ambition is now uppermost.” The first lecturer of the day, Eric, commented: “It’s a mistake to think that you should choose. In the most successful universities, like MIT, 75% of professors own one or more enterprises.” Dan argued: “That will not happen in Finland, but it is possible for a researcher to become employed in an enterprise and there are also other kinds of development work you can do besides writing research papers alone in your room.” (Entrepreneur’s lecture, quote from Dan, field notes)
Discussion
In this article, we have explored how entrepreneurs, in their role of lecturers and coaches, performed entrepreneurial narratives (with certain kinds of identities and representations of future working life) for the university students. Through the analysis of the narratives, our aim was to reflect on whether the entrepreneurial identities were accessible for university students in terms of different gender, class, and education.
While the personal narratives and strategic and marketing stories performed the psychological characteristics and competencies needed of an entrepreneur, the situational narratives created a vision of a new and flexible working life and the qualifications that are needed for success. In particular, the personal stories reproduced the traditional and narrow view of the male and middle-class entrepreneur as a special person (Hytti, 2005) compared to female entrepreneurs, researchers, and wage-workers—despite also claiming though slogans that “everyone can make it.” However, even if the strategic and marketing narratives reproduced the masculine norm of the successful entrepreneur (Ahl, 2004), the ideal entrepreneur as an autonomous individual was rejected and the importance of sociability was emphasized.
All the performed stories, but especially the situational narratives, constructed new rules for working life which challenge the hierarchical practices of big companies with their career opportunities and power positions. Instead, mobility, serendipity, and the ability to take part in another project and to nourish networks were highlighted. Entrepreneurs were presented as beings at the forefront of this new flexible world of work. The construction of this new working life (with the attributes of networking, constant activity, convincing others, etc.) manifests the kind of futuristic imagination that Boltanski and Chiapello (2005a) call a paradigm change from a second to a third spirit of capitalism. Within this spirit—which justifies people’s commitment to capitalism and which renders this commitment attractive—entrepreneurs are “great persons” (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005b), who not only seize the right opportunities and make a fortune for themselves in the competitive marketplace, but are also able to spread the benefits of social connections and generate enthusiasm (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005b, p. 169). Our analysis illustrates, however, that within the new flexible world of work, academic researchers represent a “state of smallness” (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005b, p. 169) due to their stability and inability to get involved.
Although entrepreneurship was positioned as a role model for all students (through performances of entrepreneurial identities with certain kinds of special talents, virtues and social divisions between groups), it was indicated that not all university students were entrepreneurial types (see also Farny et al., 2016; Jones, 2014; Korhonen, Komulainen, & Räty, 2011). All the narratives encapsulated the current middle-class and individualistic ideals of work as a passion and a medium of personal growth and fulfilment as well as ideals of social success within which the individual is positioned as an “author” of his or her own career (Berglund et al., 2017; Dempsey & Sanders, 2010). In other words, while it was claimed that entrepreneurship was a career opportunity for all, the university students were not addressed equally. Instead they were placed hierarchically, in terms of gender and class, through the implication that male middle-class students have more potential for success in business and in working life. The performed narratives lead to a rather narrow and restrictive version of entrepreneurship that many university students—especially female and working-class students—might find difficult to relate to (see also Berglund & Johansson, 2007). Moreover, even though the entrepreneurs addressed university students, the role of formal education as a path to upward mobility was questioned in the narratives, and practical knowledge was privileged over academic knowledge (see also Gill 2014; Jones, 2014). Based on this study, we suggest that it is important to make clear the implicit and excluding social practices and identities embedded in entrepreneurship culture. This study confirms that academic entrepreneurship and EE are a way to govern and regulate university students with unprecedented consequences. Therefore, we suggest that academic entrepreneurship should not be uncritically offered for all university students.
We could conclude that Entrepreneurship Week was more about training an entrepreneurial workforce than acquiring the skills needed in business. Entrepreneurship was presented as a channel for transformation and empowerment at both the societal and individual level (see also Farny et al., 2016). We suggest that the entrepreneurs positioned themselves in the first instance not as teachers giving business lessons, but also as mental coaches, whose aim was to assist the students in building their “philosophy of life” (i.e., visions of a positive future, setting life goals leading to success, and motivating them to pursue these goals). As mental coaches, they not only taught knowledge and skills needed in business but also encouraged students to adopt an entrepreneurial mindset (with certain kinds of associated feelings, such as enthusiasm, passion, pride, and optimism) in their future careers. As coaches, the entrepreneurs encouraged the students to observe themselves and to develop more desirable selves in a psychological landscape of entrepreneurial culture (i.e., to disavow their vulnerability and to cultivate intensified individualism in their understanding and expression of themselves; Scharff, 2016).
Moreover, as a future entrepreneurial workforce, the students were encouraged to take responsibility for their own employability. However, this employability was not framed as consisting only of academic credentials; instead, it includes having extracurricular talents, “a personality package,” and a set of “soft skills,” which are presumed to appeal to a heterogeneous group of employers (Brown, Hesketh, & Williams, 2003). The lecturers’ performances of entrepreneurial narratives nurtured a sense of need among the students to develop their extracurricular talents, such as a fluid mindset, in order to compete in the labor market.
Narratives and mental coaching, as pedagogical practices in Entrepreneurship Week, can be seen as neoliberal governance within which enterprising selves or entreployees (in the form of entrepreneur-like ways of acting and self-relationship, and models of a good life such as freedom) were offered to every university student. Moreover, EE as a manifestation of neoliberal governance not only challenges what it means to be a future graduate in working life, but also how the future entrepreneurial workforce should be educated. Extending the teacher’s role to individuals outside academia (i.e., external entrepreneurs) has been seen as an important pedagogical tool of entrepreneurial learning (Pittaway et al., 2010). We suggest that practices which privilege the role of educators other than HE institution staff might polarize education and entrepreneurship further (Jones, 2014). So far there are only a few narratives, outside technological sciences (see Hytti & Heinonen, 2013) that integrate entrepreneurship with academic identities. Academics should take a stronger and more active role in creating more inclusive narratives and identity-building models for academic entrepreneurship and EE.
A limitation of this study is the omission of the voices of the university students (see, however, Komulainen, Hirvonen, Kaskes, Kasanen, & Siivonen, 2019; Siivonen et al., 2019), and we can only speculate as to whether they identified themselves with the entrepreneurial identities portrayed. In future research, it will be important to examine students’ experiences and positioning toward academic entrepreneurship. As researchers and teachers, we should continually be ready to critically examine and evaluate entrepreneurial identity building models in HE and EE.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Academy of Finland (grant number 295961).
