Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Teaching methods and students’ preconceptions are considered a crucial basis for entrepreneurship education, not least when entrepreneurship is taught outside business schools with differentiated learning outcomes. This qualitative study seeks to explore students’ experiences of a visual-based teaching exercise––“Images of entrepreneurship”––and examines how the exercise contributes to making their preconceptions of entrepreneurship explicit. The study presents the exercise and its theoretical underpinnings and then, via interviews with 28 students from various educational backgrounds, gives a unique insight into their experiences of the exercise. The purpose is to contribute to the development of theory on pedagogical practices in classroom settings in entrepreneurship education in higher education. In order to systematically discuss the students’ relationship to the exercise and to their preconceptions of entrepreneurship, implicit theories are proposed and developed as a theoretical framework. Based on the students’ views, this study shows that entrepreneurship educators can use visual material to initiate reflective conversations about students’ implicit entrepreneurship theories, and involve students in evaluations of teaching methods in order to promote their perspective.

Keywords

implicit entrepreneurship theories university-wide entrepreneurship education visual-based teaching

Introduction

In recent decades, entrepreneurship education has been characterised by a university-wide approach, which has resulted in an increasing number of students from different disciplines taking mandatory entrepreneurship classes as part of their respective educational programmes (Antal et al., 2014). As early as 2002, Streeter et al. (2002, p. 32) stated that “the movement toward university-wide entrepreneurship education is more widespread than we imagined, and the trend in this direction has considerable momentum.” The university-wide movement has been propelled by for example the insight that “entrepreneurial thinking and skills are broadly used in the world outside academia” (West et al., 2009, p. 2). This, in turn, suggests that contemporary entrepreneurship education comprises more than just courses in business degrees, in which students apply classic models and theories in order to manage start-ups and become self-employed (Antal et al., 2014; Galloway et al., 2005). Rather, entrepreneurship knowledge and skills are regarded as potentially useful in various educational disciplines (Fayolle, 2018; Morris & Liguori, 2016), and in various contexts (Balan et al., 2018; Scott Green, 2009). This comprehensive conception of entrepreneurship education has, in turn, led to an increased diversification of student groups and, consequently, to a diversification in students’ preconceptions of entrepreneurship (Fayolle, 2018).

At the same time, business schools have been criticised for “providing out-of-context entrepreneurial education that does not relate to the personal needs, motivations and life cycles of learners” (Higgins & Refai, 2017, p. 175). Thus, recent decades have seen a growing body of literature that challenges both the ‘grand narratives’ in entrepreneurship (Higgins et al., 2018; Morris & Liguori, 2016), and the established “one-size-fits-all” teaching models in entrepreneurship education (Hytti, 2018). This body of research advocates for more individualised entrepreneurship education, (Fayolle et al., 2016; Harkema & Schout, 2008; Jones, 2007; Klapper & Refai, 2015; Nabi et al., 2017), based on students’ various preconceptions (Volkmann, 2004; Warren, 2005). For example, Blenker et al. (2008, p. 49) state that “entrepreneurship education should be adjusted to the purpose and the target group of the education”. Overall, teaching methods (Fayolle et al., 2016; Lackéus et al., 2016; Neck & Corbett, 2018) and students’ preconceptions (Lepistö & Rönkkö, 2013; Mwasalwiba, 2010; Neck & Greene, 2011) have been identified as being key to the way in which students assimilate entrepreneurship education. This line of argument has its origins in the social constructivist notion that students’ preconceptions constitute a crucial basis for education (Bell, 2021; Mueller, 2012).

In educational science, the promotion of the students’ perspective and their relationship to the study subject is well established (see for example: Larochelle & Bednarz, 1998; Meyer, 2012). This is because students’ previous experience is considered to constitute the basis of how they continually perceive the world and how they are able to adjust and change their understanding of it. Jarvis (2012, p. 121) writes: “The actual object of our perception is seen in the way that it is partly because our memories of previous learning experiences frame the object of which we have become aware.” Thus, students’ preconceptions of entrepreneurship and their awareness of these preconceptions can be seen as constituting a starting point for entrepreneurship education. In this regard, Fayolle et al. (2016) call for an intensified focus on students’ preconceptions of the entrepreneurship phenomenon in educational contexts. However, Nabi et al. (2017, p. 288) state that this requires that “future researchers provide detailed information about the pedagogical methods, so we can understand the impact of pedagogical designs and methods.”

The present study acknowledges this request and examines how students from various educational backgrounds perceived a visual-based teaching exercise: “Images of entrepreneurship.” The exercise was developed for university-wide entrepreneurship education in order to encourage students to articulate their preconceptions (Ellborg, 2018, 2021). The implementation and theoretical basis of the exercise will be presented below. In addition, through student interviews, this study elaborates on how the exercise contributes to revealing the students’ “ontological assumptions and narrative frameworks” (Plaks, 2017, p. 261) on entrepreneurship, i.e. the preconceptions of entrepreneurship on which the students base their entrepreneurship studies.

In order to systematically discuss the students’ relationship to the exercise and to their preconceptions of entrepreneurship, implicit theories have been used as a theoretical framework. Implicit theories are “people’s basic assumptions about themselves and their world” (Dweck, 1996, p. 69). The concept has, for example, been defined and used in both educational studies and leadership research, although not to any significant extent in the field of entrepreneurship education. The present study aims to contribute to the understanding of how implicit theories can constitute an analytical framework in discussions about students’ preconceptions of entrepreneurship. The concept will be described in more detail in the ‘Implicit theories’ section.

Thus, apart from presenting the exercise and its theoretical underpinnings, this study features students’ views on its pedagogical design. The study examines the following questions:

• What are the students’ experiences of participating in the visual-based exercise “Images of entrepreneurship”?

• How does the exercise contribute to make the students’ implicit theories of entrepreneurship explicit?

This study also discusses the value of promoting students’ perspectives in educational contexts. The purpose is to contribute to the development of theory on “pedagogical practices in classroom settings” (Wang, 2020, p. 33) in entrepreneurship education in higher education.

Below is a brief review of the literature on visual methods in education, followed by a description of the visual-based exercise “Images of entrepreneurship.” After that, a presentation of the concept of implicit theories is provided, and implicit entrepreneurship theories are introduced as a conceivable way of discussing students’ preconceptions of entrepreneurship in terms of both self-awareness and social awareness. The results from the student interviews are then presented and discussed. Finally, conclusions are drawn on the study’s theoretical contribution and its practical implications for entrepreneurship education.

Visual-Based Methods in Education

The design of the exercise––“Images of entrepreneurship”––originates in the knowledge that images have proven useful in enabling new perspectives in education (Bailey & Van Harken, 2014), as well as in the field of entrepreneurship (Berglund & Wigren-Kristoferson, 2012; Smith & Anderson, 2007; Welter, 2019). For example, visual material appears to be more useful than written words in capturing emotions (Smith, 2015b). This is because images, through their somewhat indefinable, and yet immediate, form (Spencer, 2010), “help transform abstract and complex feelings, opinions, experiences, concerns, attitudes and worries into tangible objects we can actually talk about, explain and expand” (Hee Pedersen, 2008, p. 36). In the same vein, Smith and Anderson (2007, p. 176) state: “The semiotic analysis of images deals with themes and general meaning, whilst the semiotic analysis of literary text deals with the way in which meaning is produced by the structures of interdependent signs, by codes and conventions. Visual semiotics therefore assists in the production of meaning.” The authors also state that: “the same image and text can invoke different meanings in different subjects. Therefore what is regarded as obvious, natural, universal, given, permanent, and incontrovertible is the result of socially constructed discourses and sign systems” (Smith & Anderson, 2007, pp. 178–179). Thus, visual representations are supposed to evoke subjective perceptions and thoughts (Hattwig et al., 2013). For example, this is the case with stereotyping in which “we use known images, symbols and stories to familiarize ourselves with the unknown” (Welter, 2019, p. 184). However, unlike Smith (2015a), who analyses (stereotypical) images presented in entrepreneurship education textbooks, this study does not discuss images that are intended to depict entrepreneurship. Rather, it explores how visual material can motivate students to examine their (conscious and unconscious) preconceptions of entrepreneurship.

Using visual-based methods as pedagogical tools to explore students’ perspectives, based on emotions and awareness, is not new. Visual methods have been studied in educational settings in various fields. For example, educators in psychology (Watt & Wakefield, 2014), geography (Kurtz & Wood, 2014), and social work (Bromfield & Capous-Desyllas, 2017) have described how they use photo elicitation (Harper, 2002) in their teaching, i.e. they let their students interpret visual material when they are introduced to new concepts and phenomenon. In these studies, all the educators stated how visual methods evoke emotions, encourage self-reflection and “enhance personal and professional self-awareness” (Bromfield & Capous-Desyllas, 2017, p. 494).

Educational studies also examine exercises in which students describe their preconceptions via their own photos, so-called photovoice. For example, Cooper et al. (2017), use photovoice as a pedagogical tool to promote experiential learning and critical dialogue among students on an undergraduate community health course.

McAllister and Rowe (2003) describe how a selection of ready-made photos are used in nursing education in order to evoke a conversation in which students describe their thoughts about a certain aspect of the course. The students are asked to choose one of the photos and explain why they think it is meaningful for them in relation to the subject being discussed. The authors call this exercise “Scattered pictures,” and the aim is to sharpen the students’ awareness and heighten their senses. As can be seen in the description of “Images of entrepreneurship” below, this way of using photos as a basis for reflective conversation (Hattwig et al., 2013; Rose, 2016; Säljö, 2010) is similar to the exercise in the present study.

However, the main part of the research on visual-based methods in education are descriptions and reflections from the educator’s perspective. That is, most studies do not present the students’ views on the described exercises, nor do they examine the students’ own reflections on the feelings and sense of awareness that the exercises are intended to promote. A rare exception is Schell et al. (2009), who present a photovoice exercise in an advanced methodology class from both the teacher’s and the sociology students’ perspectives. However, the authors note that: “There has been a lack of research done on in-class teaching and learning using visual methods” (Schell et al., 2009, p. 340).

The teacher perspective is also dominant in the relatively few studies that address the use of visual methods as pedagogical tools in entrepreneurship education. One example in more recent years is Jones et al. (2017), who describe and highlight the benefits of a visual-based exercise for business modelling. The authors argue that visual methods are ideal for entrepreneurship education as they enhance reflexivity and creativity. Another example is Verduijn (2018), who presents an example of how to use film as a pedagogical medium for students to approach entrepreneurship. Verduijin (2018, p. 208) finds that film as a visual medium contributes to a process whereby “students become reflexive of their own taken-for-granted ideas.” A recent work in this field is Lefebvre et al. (2021), who provide an example of a visual-based exercise used in educational settings for family business owners. The authors regard the exercise as a “powerful pedagogical tool for encouraging awareness and reflexivity in multigenerational family businesses” (Lefebvre et al., 2021, p. 200).

The present study intends to contribute to research on “in-class teaching and learning using visual methods” (Schell et al., 2009, p. 340) in entrepreneurship education by voicing the students’ perspective on the teaching method. As mentioned in the Introduction, the study describes a specific teaching method (Hannon, 2006) and then, via student interviews, gives a unique insight into the learners’ experiences of the same method (Hägg, 2017). This is in line with Könings et al. (2005), who recommend that the perspectives of all parties involved in education (i.e. teachers and students) should be considered when developing educational settings.

“Images of Entrepreneurship”––A Visual-Based Teaching Exercise

The studied teaching exercise––“Images of entrepreneurship”––has been used as a pedagogical tool in various entrepreneurship courses at a Swedish university (Ellborg, 2018, 2021). It was developed out of curiosity about students’ preconceptions and designed as an interpretive exercise to use for course introductions. The three entrepreneurship courses represented in this study all adopt a broad approach to entrepreneurship. This is because the course content includes theoretical perspectives on entrepreneurship, as well as creative processes and the development of new business ideas. Some of the students studied business administration before participating in the entrepreneurship course (i.e. students on the Tourism programme), while some students were from other educational backgrounds, although the entrepreneurship course was a mandatory part of their educational programme (i.e. students from the Sports science programme and the Culture and communication programme). In all three courses the visual exercise was conducted on the very first day of the course, before any lectures were held or textbooks introduced. The exercise was constructed as a photo elicitation session (Harper, 2002) with “Scattered pictures” (McAllister & Rowe, 2003). In this particular case, 31 black and white photos, printed as postcards, constituted the visual material (see Figure 1). The photos portrayed people in various situations and moods (for example, alone, in interaction with other people, active, inactive, and so on), items (for example, coffee mugs, dominoes, a window, and a car tyre), animals (for example, a turtle and a cat), landscapes (a flower, a road, chimneys, and so on). The set of photos was compiled and tested by a professional photographer in collaboration with entrepreneurship researchers and teachers (Ellborg, 2018, 2021). The purpose with the visual material was to initiate conversations about entrepreneurship, starting with images as a system of signs (Barthes, 1967), which is more open to interpretation than written words. Ready-made photos were chosen since they do not presuppose specific visual skills or require students to produce something in an ‘artistic’ sense (Hattwig et al., 2013). Rather, the visual material was intended to be a tool for reflection.

Figure 1.

The photos used in the exercise. Source: Ellborg (2018). Photographer: Cecilia Ekroth.

During the exercise, the students were asked to choose one of the photos to illustrate their response to the question: “What does entrepreneurship mean to you?” The students then verbally described how they perceived entrepreneurship, based on their interpretation of the photo they had chosen. During the students’ presentations, the teacher made notes on a whiteboard and concluded the exercise by summarising and, together with the students, reflecting on what had been said. The exercise was then followed by entrepreneurship lectures in which the teacher had the opportunity to relate the course content to the students’ stated preconceptions, i.e. implicit theories on entrepreneurship.

Implicit Theories

Implicit theories are everyday images (Schyns & Schilling, 2011) or mental models that cover an “individual’s view of the world, which includes their knowledge, beliefs and experiences” (Cope, 2003, p. 433). However, “in contrast to scientific theories, laypersons’ theories are often implicit in the sense that their holders are not aware of them and how they affect their behavior” (Job, 2016, p. 204). In this vein (Dweck, 1996, p. 88), argues that “understanding people’s implicit theories may be one way to gain insight into their reality.”

The term ‘implicit theories’ has been frequently used in psychology research to study relational actions and behaviours (Heider, 1958), and Gupta et al. (2019, p. 147) state that “recent years have witnessed growing interest in implicit theories about entrepreneurship.” The authors refer, in turn, to the works of Pollack (2011) on how peoples’ entity implicit theories about entrepreneurship (the belief that entrepreneurs are born) versus incremental implicit theories about entrepreneurship (the belief that entrepreneurs are made) shape the way people act in entrepreneurial situations. Pollack (2011, p. 248) writes: “A person’s implicit beliefs about the nature of entrepreneurial ability influence intention in response to setbacks, establish the framework by which events are interpreted and this line of research, examining individual-level cognitive process, may be particularly useful in understanding persistence in the face of challenges in the field of entrepreneurship.” The concept of ‘implicit entrepreneurship theories’ has also been applied in research projects on cross-cultural comparison studies of entrepreneurs (see for example: Elenurm et al., 2014; Rozell et al., 2011). However these studies, like Pollack (2011), explore implicit theories on entrepreneurship from a general perspective and have not incorporated the effect of implicit entrepreneurship theories into entrepreneurship education.

In the field of education science, cognitive and motivational factors have been studied because they are assumed to influence students’ learning (see for example: Leondari & Gialamas, 2002). Job (2016, p. 204) writes: “The study of personal beliefs goes back to Jean Piaget who argued that children develop so-called meaning systems that guide their behavior.” In educational contexts, implicit theories “seem to modify the meaning that a particular goal has for the student” (Hong et al., 1999, p. 589), as well as affect motivation and attitude (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). For example, in an article on Technology education, Dow (2006, p. 241) states that implicit theories have “a powerful influence both upon our interpretation of new information and upon how we act in any given situation.” The author also describes implicit theories as a framework with which students interpret and make sense of new educational content. Thus, raising students’ awareness of their implicit theories of entrepreneurship can promote their own understanding, as well as the teacher’s understanding, of their ‘sensemaking’ of entrepreneurship (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004), and thereby the students’ relationship to the subject at the start of their education (Marton & Ramsden, 1988).

The field of leadership has addressed implicit theories for several decades. Already in 1975, Eden and Leviatan coined the term Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) in a study of students’ preconceptions of leadership. In 2005, Eden and Leviatan (2005, p. 10) stated that “Clearly, there is potential for implicit theories of other organizational constructs and processes,” which is something the present author has noted when using implicit theories in entrepreneurship education research.

Developing a Theoretical Framework for Implicit Entrepreneurship Theories

In 2011, Schyns et al. developed a visual-based exercise in order to ‘uncover’ emotions and cognitive schemas about leadership (i.e. ILT). The visual material in the study comprised participants’ drawings, although the authors stated that ready-made photos, for example, could also be used for similar purposes. When evaluating the exercise, the authors noted that the interpretations of visual material increased the participants’ awareness––both self-awareness and social awareness––of leadership. Through the visual exercise the participants became “[…] aware of their own and, at the same time, others’ implicit leadership theories” (Schyns et al., 2013, p. 15). Thus, the work of Schyns et al. discusses the disclosure of implicit theories in terms of both self-awareness and social awareness:

• Self-awareness was defined as an individual’s awareness of their emotional reactions to leadership, as well as an awareness of an individual’s sensemaking of the term on a cognitive level

• Social awareness was defined as an awareness of others’ emotional and cognitive sensemaking of leadership, and how these might differ from an individual’s own implicit theories

Based on the work of Schyns et al. (2011, 2013), this study has developed a theoretical framework for ‘implicit entrepreneurship theories’ in which self-awareness and social awareness are characterised by emotional and cognitive relationships to entrepreneurship (see Figure 2). Thus, in the present study, ‘implicit entrepreneurship theories,’ is used to denote students’ self-awareness and social awareness of entrepreneurship.

Figure 2.

Theoretically derived categories for Implicit Entrepreneurship Theories based on the work of Schyns et al. (2011, 2013).

Method

In order to explore the students’ experiences of the visual-based exercise and how the exercise contributes to make their self-awareness and social awareness of entrepreneurship explicit, interviews were conducted with students who participated in the exercise. The fundamental unit of analysis in this qualitative study is the students’ perceptions and experience in relation to the visual teaching method. The study follows a constructivist perspective and seeks to explain a phenomenon through the students’ experiences in a specific educational setting. Thus, the study is characterised by interpretive research traditions (Creswell, 2013) as it focuses on how a phenomenon (i.e. a visual teaching exercise) is perceived (Prasad, 2005) by students.

The empirical material was gathered from five focus group interviews (Bell et al., 2018) comprising 28 students from three different bachelor programmes at the university at which the exercise was created (see Table 1). The students were in their second or third year of study. At the time of the interviews, they were studying mandatory entrepreneurship courses in their respective educational programmes. The entrepreneurship courses were given by teachers from the university’s Business School. Since the participants were typical students from various educational backgrounds engaged in university-wide entrepreneurship education, the sample can be understood as purposive (Etikan, 2016).

Table 1.

The Interviews.

Interviewees	Course and date of course introduction (i.e. when the visual exercise was held)	Date of interview
Three students from the Culture and communication programme	Entrepreneurial organisational development, 5 credits, 22 October, 2018	31 October, 2018
Four students from the Culture and communication programme	Entrepreneurial organisational development, 5 credits, 22 October, 2018	31 October, 2018
Four students from the Culture and communication programme	Entrepreneurial organisational development, 5 credits, 22 October, 2018	31 October, 2018
Eight students from the Tourism programme	Business development and entrepreneurship, 7.5 credits, 6 November, 2018	6 December, 2018
Nine students from the Sport science programme	Entrepreneurship for health, 15 credits, 21 January, 2019	25 February, 2019

The main themes in the semi-structured interview guide (Bell et al., 2018) were as follows:

• Describe your reasoning while choosing a photo

• Do you have any previous experience of entrepreneurship?

• Describe your participation in the exercise

• Were there any aspects of entrepreneurship you were unable to describe during the exercise?

• How do you feel about the fact that both photos and words were used?

The interview guide was constructed in order to create a discussion on how the participants understood the visual material in relation to entrepreneurship, but also to capture their reflections on the exercise, and their perspectives on the educational setting.

Each interview lasted 45–60 min and was documented with notes. The notes were transcribed by the author in accordance with the structure of the interview guide. In the interpretation of the interview responses (Trent & Cho, 2014), the students’ views were analysed according to the categories in the theory-based framework (i.e. Figure 2) (Azungah, 2018; Gale et al., 2013). Thus, implicit theories constituted an explanatory basis in the analysis of the empirical material, rather than being tested as a hypothesis in relation to the students’ views about the exercise. In the subsequent discussion, an extension of the framework was developed, based on the empirical material. The research process can therefore be described as abductive (Anderson, 1986; Hintikka, 1998; Kolko, 2010) since it oscillates between empirical and theoretical starting points with the aim of contributing to the theoretical development of implicit theories, and to the students’ perspectives of entrepreneurship education. According to Alvesson and Sköldberg (2017, pp. 4–5), the abductive method means that a single case is “interpreted from a hypothetic overarching pattern” and further that “the empirical area of application is successively developed, and theory (the proposed over-arching pattern) is also adjusted and refined.”

A compilation of the responses, structured in relation to the interview guide, is presented in the ‘Students’ views’ section below, followed by a theoretically based analyse, and a discussion in which the theoretical framework is further developed.

Students’ Views

When describing the process of choosing a specific photo in the exercise, the participants used emotional-connotated expressions such as “feel” and “interest.” For example, one student argued that the choice of photo “should feel right” and another argued that “I chose to go for something that reflected my gut feeling.” However, the participants also referred to how they made sense of entrepreneurship on a cognitive level, using expressions such as “associated.” For example: “I didn’t know that much about entrepreneurship, but I associated it with producing, creating and implementing,” and “I associated entrepreneurship with ‘daring to do something’.” Thus, in the same way as using emotionally-connoted concepts, the participants used cognitively-connoted concepts such as how they “thought” about entrepreneurship in certain ways. For example, someone said: “I thought it was about businesses” and someone else “I thought that businesses could be social projects that are jointly planned.”

In relation to previous experience of entrepreneurship, one student claimed: “I’m fascinated by extreme entrepreneurs; they go ‘all in’ and they get rich,” while another student stated that her choice of photo was based on the fact that “I had a negative perception of entrepreneurs as capitalists.” During the interviews the participants reflected on the source of their experience and referred to both more direct and indirect experiences. Examples include: “My grandfather runs a business,” “I’ve heard so many stories about entrepreneurship,” and “My perception of entrepreneurship stems from the media.” Some students had started their own businesses through the organisation “Young Enterprise” while in upper secondary school. One of them stated that it was “a biased perspective” only based on “How we can make money.”

Regarding their experiences of participating in the exercise, the students stated that they felt the exercise required the use of their own feelings, rather than knowledge-based responses. They also described that the exercise evoked emotions. This was reflected in statements such as: “It’s unclear what entrepreneurship really is, but I immediately got a feeling of which photo I was going to choose” and “We couldn’t give ‘correct’ responses as we hadn’t started the course yet. But the photos meant that we could be free and creative in our reasoning.” One participant pointed out that during the exercise “It was ok to feel unsure.”

In addition, statements like “It was interesting to hear that everyone thinks so differently,” and “We need to look beyond the norms” frequently occur in the material. The participants also recognised that some perspectives introduced by their peers differed more from their own than other perspectives. This was described by one student as follows: “Someone else had seen things that you yourself didn’t think about at all.” One participant stated that, because of the exercise, he had recognised “the breadth” of the subject and another student stated that the method was a way of “capturing and discussing what entrepreneurship might be.” According to the students, the exercise made them examine themselves and their cognitive sensemaking of entrepreneurship. For example, one of the participants explained that when he looked at the photos he started wondering: “What do I think about entrepreneurship?” and another student asked: “Who do I see as an entrepreneur?”

In the discussion on whether the ready-made photos constituted a limitation for them when they were asked to describe their preconceptions of entrepreneurship, one student stated: “It was us, rather than the photos, that were limiting.” Another student stated: “Any thoughts I had about entrepreneurship could be concretised using the selection of photos.” One participant pointed at the photo she chose during the exercise and said: “It was the first thing I saw. A typical image. I thought everyone would choose that photo.” In the following discussion it transpired that even if some of the students did choose the same photo, they often interpreted it differently. “You could have different explanations for different photos,” one of them stated, while another said: “We interpret things in different ways.” However, another participant argued: “Together, all our different interpretations give a broader picture.”

Regarding the question “How do you feel about the fact that both photos and words were used?” the participants stated that the photos helped them reflect on entrepreneurship based on the emotions that the term entrepreneurship aroused, rather than objectively explaining what an entrepreneur does or what the results of entrepreneurship are. One student said: “It’s easier to use your emotions when you use photos.” This insight was confirmed by another student who stated that without the photos she would not have revealed her preconceptions: “They emerged when I explained my choice of photo.” One participant referred to the photos as ‘tools’ that offered “feelings and symbols” that “opened up” reflections more than words do. “Without the photos,” one student said, “I would have given an explanation without describing my reasoning.” Overall, the participants found that the photos helped them “visualise knowledge and stereotypes” from their own perspective. “The exercise gives us a perception of our knowledge and prejudices,” as one of them put it. The participants also felt that the visual material offered diversity in the discussion. One student said: “If we had used only words, everyone might have thought a bit more equally and given a more uniform picture, and many of us would have said: ‘It’s about starting your own business’. But because you’re looking at photos, you view things from a different angle.” There were also examples of how entrepreneurship could be understood in new contexts, due to the visual-based method: “Without the photos, I would only have seen negative aspects and not made a connection with the public sector.” Overall, the participants perceived that the visual exercise contributed to “Opening your mind, reflecting, and inspiring you to new ways of thinking.”

Analysis and Discussion

Emotional and Cognitive Processes

When the students described their feelings about participating in the exercise and the process of choosing a photo, it transpired that their preconceptions were based on both their emotional relationship to entrepreneurship and on cognitive processes. During the interviews it became clear that the students thought that the photos helped them to describe how they understood entrepreneurship from their own perspective. Thus, the interviews suggest that the applied visual material, just like in the ILT studies by Schyns et al. (2011; 2013), helped the students to describe their subjective emotions and thoughts (Hattwig et al., 2013). Also, none of the students appeared to be limited by the ready-made photos that were presented to them in the sense that the exercise prevented them from describing their point of view. Rather, the “open” approach that the students witnessed in the visual exercise made them reflect on what, as one student described, “was behind” their descriptions. Thus, the students considered how, and in which contexts, their preconceptions arose (Plaks, 2017).

In addition, the students were able to reason on a meta level about why they felt the way they did, something that indicates self-awareness of the emotional part of their implicit theories. They were also able to make meta-cognitive reflections on the method in relation to cognitive sensemaking. For example, the students stated that they realised during the exercise that everyone has different perceptions, and that their own perceptions had been influenced by a specific context. Some students were surprised by the fact that not everyone chose the same photo. This indicates that the exercise helped them realise that what they themselves experienced as typical for entrepreneurship might not be the case for everyone in the classroom. Thus, the exercise was a way of capturing variations in the students’ preconceptions (Fayolle, 2018; Volkmann, 2004). Their genuine surprise also suggests that the students’ mental images of a subject are indeed subjective and vary within the same group.

The interviews also showed that many students based their choice of photo on the experience of others, i.e. their relationship to entrepreneurship stemmed from what they heard or saw others say and do, such as family or the media (Warren, 2005). This indicates a social awareness of contexts, regarding both their experience in relation to society and their experience in relation to their student peers.

According to the students, and in line with previous research (Klapper & Neergaard, 2017; Muñoz et al., 2011; Verduijn, 2018; Welter, 2019), the photos become concrete tools to elaborate on nuanced perspectives (Bailey & Van Harken, 2014), based on knowledge, emotions and stereotypes (Hee Pedersen, 2008; Smith, 2015a). As indicated in the participants’ meta-cognitive reflections, this, in turn, made them aware of their own and others’ emotional and cognitive understanding of entrepreneurship, i.e. increased self-awareness and social awareness.

Self-Awareness and Social Awareness

Following the above discussion, self-awareness and social awareness are not just about an individual being able to express their feelings and thoughts, but, on a meta level, being able to reflect on why these feelings and thoughts might occur and how they relate to the feelings and thoughts of others. Based on the students’ perspectives on the exercise, the original theoretical framework (i.e. derived from Schyns et al. (2011)) could be further refined in order to cover both what is described and the meta-cognitive reflections on these statements. Thus, the theoretically derived categories have been developed from the notion that the students described their emotions and awareness and made meta-reflections on the exercise during the interviews. In the developed framework (see Figure 3), self-awareness covers:

(1) Describing own emotions

(2) Meta-cognitive reflections on the method in relation to own emotions

(3) Describing cognitive sensemaking

(4) Meta-cognitive reflections on the method in relation to cognitive sensemaking

Figure 3.

Developed framework for Implicit Entrepreneurship Theories based on the work of Schyns et al. (2011, 2013), and interview results.

Social awareness covers:

(1) Describing an awareness of emotions and the contexts of others

(2) Meta-cognitive reflections on the method in relation to the emotions and contexts of others

(3) Describing an awareness of cognitive sensemaking and the contexts of others

(4) Meta-cognitive reflections on the method in relation to cognitive sensemaking and the contexts of others

Describing denotes the wording used by the students to describe their reasoning in the visual-based method in terms of their emotions and thoughts. Meta-cognitive reflections (Grossman, 2009) denotes the students’ re-examination and evaluation (Kember, 2001) of the visual-based method in relation to its ability to make them self-aware or socially aware of their emotional and cognitive sensemaking (i.e. their implicit entrepreneurship theories).

Bringing Students’ Implicit Entrepreneurship Theories Forward in Educational Settings

From the interviews it could be concluded that the students appear to initially think of entrepreneurship in terms of activities such as “producing and creating,” or skills such as “daring to do something.” Emotionally, some students are “fascinated” by entrepreneurship, while others are “negative” about it. These various implicit entrepreneurship theories of the interviewed students appear to reflect the diversity expected of students in university-wide entrepreneurship education (Antal et al., 2014; Fayolle, 2018; Volkmann, 2004). In addition, their visualised implicit entrepreneurship theories help to highlight what the students refer to as a “broader picture” of entrepreneurship. For example, their reasoning when they interpret businesses as social projects indicates that they do not automatically adopt any “taken-for-granted” assumption. “We need to look beyond the norms” as one student said, thereby challenging the “grand narratives” (Higgins et al., 2018; Morris & Liguori, 2016) and paving the way for entrepreneurship education that goes beyond the business perspective (Balan et al., 2018; Hytti, 2018; Scott Green, 2009). Thus, the exercise challenges the one-size-fits-all educational perspective as it has the capacity to capture students’ broad sensemaking of entrepreneurship (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004), which constitutes the starting point for education (Marton & Ramsden, 1988). Overall, the exercise has the potential to be used to learn more about students’ preconceptions (Higgins & Refai, 2017; Lepistö & Rönkkö, 2013; Mueller, 2012; Neck & Greene, 2011).

Further Research Directions

As described in the method section, this study adopts a qualitative approach in which the applied method is based on interpretations, i.e. the researcher’s interpretations of the students’ statements which, in turn, are derived from their interpretations of the visual material. In line with the chosen method, the empirical material originates in a relatively small number of students attending same university. In order to evaluate the exercise further, a comprehensive comparative study could be conducted with control groups that are not part of the visual-based exercise. Also, as the sample of photos used in the exercise has not been scientifically assessed, the sample can be further elaborated on, and even partly replaced, in order to examine the significance of the visual material. Based on the discussion above, there is also additional potential in exploring implicit theories in entrepreneurship education research in more detail in order to investigate implicit entrepreneurship theories as a way of creating knowledge of students’ preconceptions.

Conclusions

This study has explored students’ perspectives on how their preconceptions of entrepreneurship can be mediated by a visual-based teaching exercise. Implicit entrepreneurship theories have been proposed as a framework to denote students’ self-awareness and social awareness of entrepreneurship. Also, the value of promoting students’ perspectives has been discussed.

The study makes three practical contributions based on the results in relation to the exercise as a potential for students’ perspectives in entrepreneurship education.

Firstly, the students regarded the visual exercise as being a relevant way of creating an inclusive and open climate in entrepreneurship education, in which they are invited to reflect on their preconceptions. The interviews also showed how the students are able to consciously analyse an educational design and make a critical contribution with perspectives on the subject itself, as well as on how the teaching is organised.

Secondly, when students are invited to reflect on their implicit entrepreneurship theories, they convey both traditional views and more critical perspectives on entrepreneurship. According to the students, the visual exercise described in this text has helped them become aware that other students may have different inputs in relation to the subject. While the students feel that they have candidly described their previous experience of entrepreneurship, they have also realised that the subject is extensive and can include a range of different phenomena.

Thirdly, as the exercise helps to make the students’ implicit theories of entrepreneurship explicit, it gives teachers an insight into the various starting points that a student group has in relation to the subject, thereby making teachers aware of what the students already know (or do not know). Thus, the exercise is a suitable teaching tool for university-wide entrepreneurship education as it can help teachers gain insight into the different meanings that students ascribe to entrepreneurship, thereby helping to enhance the students’ perspective.

In addition, the study provides a theoretical development on implicit entrepreneurship theory. From a theoretical perspective, the study demonstrates how an established theory from the field of leadership can enrich the field of entrepreneurship education through the development of a theoretical framework for addressing students’ emotional and cognitive processes, as well as their meta-cognitive reflections on these processes, i.e. implicit entrepreneurship theories.

Overall, the results show that the students’ preconeptions of entrepreneurship are in the eye of the beholder. Based on the students’ views, this study suggests that entrepreneurship educators can use visual material to initiate reflective conversations about students’ experience, and involve students in evaluations of teaching methods in order to promote their perspective. In these processes, ‘implicit entrepreneurship theories’ has the potential to be a relevant analytical framework.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Correction (May 2024):

Article updated online to include "Ethical Approval" and "Informed Consent" statements since its original publication. Please see <> for more details.

Ethical Approval

This study did not require ethical approval from the institution.

Informed Consent

Participation in this event was optional. Participants provided informed consent verbally which was audio-recorded by the authors.

ORCID iD

Katarina Ellborg

References

Alvesson

Sköldberg

(2017). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Sage Publications.

Anderson

D. R.

(1986). The evolution of Peirce’s concept of abduction. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 22(2), 145–164.

Antal

Kingma

Moore

Streeter

(2014). University-wide entrepreneurship education. In Kuratko

D. F.

Hoskinson

Libecap

(Eds.), Innovative pathways for university entrepreneurship in the 21st century (pp. 227–254). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Azungah

(2018). Qualitative research: Deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(4), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-18-00035

Bailey

N. M.

Van Harken

E. M.

(2014). Visual images as tools of teacher inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113519130

Balan

Maritz

McKinlay

(2018). A structured method for innovating in entrepreneurship pedagogies. Education + Training, 60(7/8), 819–840. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2017-0064

Barthes

(1967). Elements of semiology. Beacon Press.

Bell

Bryman

Harley

(2018). Business research methods. Oxford University Press.

Bell

(2021). Underpinning the entrepreneurship educator’s toolkit: Conceptualising the influence of educational philosophies and theory. Entrepreneurship Education, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-020-00042-4

10.

Berglund

K. A. E.

Wigren-Kristoferson

(2012). Using pictures and artefacts in a PAR process to disclose new wor (l) ds of entrepreneurship. Action Research, 10(3), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750312446297

11.

Blenker

Dreisler

Faergemann

H. M.

Kjeldsen

(2008). A framework for developing entrepreneurship education in a university context. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 5(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijesb.2008.015953

12.

Bromfield

N. F.

Capous-Desyllas

(2017). Photovoice as a pedagogical tool: Exploring personal and professional values with female Muslim social work students in an intercultural classroom setting. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 37(5), 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2017.1380744

13.

Cooper

Sorensen

Yarbrough

(2017). Visualising the health of communities: Using Photovoice as a pedagogical tool in the college classroom. Health Education Journal, 76(4), 454–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896917691790

14.

Cope

(2003). Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection: Discontinuous events as triggers for ‘higher-level’ learning. Management Learning, 34(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507603039067

15.

Creswell

(2013). Qualitative research inquiry and design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

16.

Dow

(2006). Implicit theories: Their impact on technology education. In Dakers

(Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 239–250). Palgrave Macmillan US: Springer.

17.

Dweck

C. S.

(1996). Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior. In Gollwitzer

P. M.

Bargh

J. A.

(Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior(pp. 69–90). The Guilford Press.

18.

Dweck

C. S.

Leggett

E. L.

(1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.256

19.

Eden

Leviatan

(1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 736–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736

20.

Eden

Leviatan

(2005). From implicit personality theory to implicit leadership theory: A side-trip on the way to implicit organization theory. In Schyns

Meindl

J. R.

(Eds.), Implicit leadership theories : Essays and explorations (pp. 3–14). IAP.

21.

Elenurm

Alas

Rozell

E. J.

Scroggins

W. A.

Alsua

C. J.

(2014). Cultural prototypes of the successful entrepreneur: Comparison of Estonia and the United States. Journal of Baltic Studies, 45(4), 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/01629778.2014.938354

22.

Ellborg

(2018). Visualizing entrepreneurship: Using pictures as ways to see and talk about entrepreneurship in educational settings. In Matthews

C. H.

Liguori

(Eds.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy – 2018. Edward Elgar Publishing.

23.

Ellborg

(2021). “Aha, so that’s how you see it!”: Educators’ experiences of using a visual exercise as a student-centered educational approach. In Matthews

C. H.

Liguori

(Eds.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy – 2021. Edward Elgar.

24.

Epitropaki

Martin

(2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293

25.

Etikan

(2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

26.

Fayolle

(2018). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. In Fayolle

(Ed.), A research agenda for entrepreneurship education (pp. 127–138). Edward Elgar Publishing.

27.

Fayolle

Verzat

Wapshott

(2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616649250

28.

Gale

N. K.

Heath

Cameron

Rashid

Redwood

(2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 117–118. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117

29.

Galloway

Anderson

Brown

Wilson

(2005). Enterprise skills for the economy. Education + Training, 47(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910510580593

30.

Grossman

(2009). Structures for facilitating student reflection. College Teaching, 57(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.3200/ctch.57.1.15-22

31.

Gupta

V. K.

Wieland

A. M.

Turban

D. B.

(2019). Gender characterizations in entrepreneurship: A multi‐level investigation of sex‐role stereotypes about high‐growth, commercial, and social entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12495

32.

Hägg

(2017). Experiential entrepreneurship education: Reflective thinking as a counterbalance to action for developing entrepreneurial knowledge. Lund University.

33.

Hannon

P. D.

(2006). Teaching pigeons to dance: Sense and meaning in entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 48(5), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610677018

34.

Harkema

S. J.

Schout

(2008). Incorporating student‐centred learning in innovation and entrepreneurship education. European Journal of Education, 43(4), 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2008.00372.x

35.

Harper

(2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345

36.

Hattwig

Bussert

Medaille

Burgess

(2013). Visual literacy standards in higher education: New opportunities for libraries and student learning. Libraries and the Academy, 13(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2013.0008

37.

Hee Pedersen

(2008). Anchors of meaning–helpers of dialogue: The use of images in production of relations and meaning. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390701768781

38.

Heider

(1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley and Son.

39.

Higgins

Galloway

Jones

McGowan

(2018). Entrepreneurial education and learning–Critical perspectives and engaging conversations. Industry and Higher Education, 32(6), 355–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422218809866

40.

Higgins

Refai

(2017). Creating meaningful entrepreneurial practice: Crafting pedagogical awareness. In Jones

Maas

Pittaway

(Eds.), Entrepreneurship education: New perspectives on research, policy & practice (pp. 171–195). Emerald Publishing Limited.

41.

Hintikka

(1998). What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 34(3), 503–533.

42.

Hong

Y.-Y.

Chiu

C.-Y.

Dweck

C. S.

Lin

D. M.-S.

Wan

(1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588

43.

Hytti

(2018). Epilogue: Critical entrepreneurship education: A form of resistance to McEducation? In Berglund

Verduy

(Eds.), Revitalizing entrepreneurship education (pp. 228–234). Routledge.

44.

Jarvis

(2012). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. Routledge.

45.

Job

(2016). Implicit theories about willpower. In Hirt

E. R.

Clarkson

J. J.

Jia

(Eds.), Self-regulation and ego control (pp. 203–225). Elsevier.

46.

Jones

(2007). Creating the reasonable adventurer: The co-evolution of student and learning environment. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 228–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000710746664

47.

Jones

Newbery

Underwood

(2017). Enhanced entrepreneurial learning through visual experiential learning. In Jones

Maas

Pittaway

(Eds.), Entrepreneurship education (pp. 197–211). Emerald Publishing Limited.

48.

Kember

(2001). Reflections on reflections. In Kember

(Ed.), Reflective teaching and learning in the health professions. Blackwell Science Ltd.

49.

Klapper

R. G.

Neergaard

(2017). Teaching entrepreneurship as lived experience through wonderment exercises. In Jones

Maas

Pittaway

(Eds.), Entrepreneurship education: New perspectives on entrepreneurship education (pp. 145–170). Emerald Publishing Limited.

50.

Klapper

R. G.

Refai

(2015). A Gestalt model of entrepreneurial learning. In Entrepreneurial learning (pp. 156–177). Routledge.

51.

Kolko

(2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15

52.

Könings

K. D.

Brand‐Gruwel

Van Merriënboer

J. J.

(2005). Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and students. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 645–660.

53.

Kurtz

H. E.

Wood

(2014). Stone Soup: Photo-elicitation as a learning tool in the food geography classroom. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 38(4), 546-556. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2014.958657

54.

Lackéus

Lundqvist

Williams Middleton

(2016). Bridging the traditional-progressive education rift through entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(6), 777–803.

55.

Larochelle

Bednarz

(1998). Constructivism and education: Beyond epistemoligical correctness In Larochelle

Bednarz

Garrison

(Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 3–20). Cambridge University Press.

56.

Lefebvre

Radu-Lefebvre

Gartner

W. B.

Clarke

(2021). Building multitemporal awareness and reflexivity in family business: A visual sensemaking exercise. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 4(2), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420921388

57.

Leondari

Gialamas

(2002). Implicit theories, goal orientations, and perceived competence: Impact on students' achievement behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10035

58.

Lepistö

Rönkkö

M.-L.

(2013). Teacher students as future entrepreneurship educators and learning facilitators. Education + Training, 55(7), 641–653.

59.

Marton

Ramsden

(1988). What does it take to improve learning. In Ramsden

(Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 268–286). Kogan Page Ltd.

60.

McAllister

Rowe

(2003). Blackbirds singing in the dead of night? Advancing the craft of teaching qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(7), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-20030701-06

61.

Meyer

M. A.

(2012). Keyword: Didactics in Europe. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(3), 449–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-012-0322-8

62.

Morris

M. H.

Liguori

(2016). Preface: Teaching reason and the unreasonable. In Morris

M. H.

Liguori

E. W.

(Eds.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

63.

Mueller

(2012). The Mature Learner: Understanding entrepreneurial learning processes of university students from a social constructivist perspective. Robert Gordon University. http://openair.rgu.ac.uk

64.

Mwasalwiba

E. S.

(2010). Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education + Training, 52(1), 20–47.

65.

Muñoz

Mosey

Binks

(2011). Developing opportunity-identification capabilities in the classroom: Visual evidence for changing mental frames. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.62798934

66.

Nabi

Liñán

Fayolle

Krueger

Walmsley

(2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026

67.

Neck

H. M.

Corbett

A. C.

(2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737286

68.

Neck

H. M.

Greene

P. G.

(2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627x.2010.00314.x

69.

Plaks

J. E.

(2017). Implicit theories: Assumptions that shape social and moral cognition. In Olson

J. M.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 259–310). Academic Press.

70.

Pollack

J. M.

(2011). Implicit theories of entrepreneurship. In Dana

L.-P.

(Ed.), World encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing.

71.

Prasad

(2005). Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist traditions: ME Sharpe.

72.

Rose

(2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. Sage Publications.

73.

Rozell

E. J.

Meyer

K. E.

Scroggins

W. A.

Guo

(2011). Perceptions of the characteristics of successful entrepreneurs: An empirical study in China. International Journal of Management, 28(4), Article 60.

74.

Säljö

(2010). Den lärande människan — teoretiska traditioner. In Lindberg

Säljö

Lundgren

U. P.

(Eds.), Lärande, skola, bildning: Grundbok för lärare (pp. 225–286). Natur & Kultur.

75.

Schell

Ferguson

Hamoline

Shea

Thomas-Maclean

(2009). Photovoice as a teaching tool: Learning by doing with visual methods. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(3), 340–352.

76.

Schyns

Kiefer

Kerschreiter

Tymon

(2011). Teaching implicit leadership theories to develop leaders and leadership: How and why it can make a difference. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0015

77.

Schyns

Schilling

(2011). Implicit leadership theories: Think leader, think effective? Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610375989

78.

Schyns

Tymon

Kiefer

Kerschreiter

(2013). New ways to leadership development: A picture paints a thousand words. Management Learning, 44(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507612456499

79.

Scott Green

(2009). From commerce to culture: Entrepreneurship in the mainstream. In West

G. P.

Gatewood

E. J.

Shaver

K. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of university-wide entrepreneurship education (pp. 15–20). Edward Elgar Publishing.

80.

Smith

(2015a). Con‘text’ualizing images of enterprise: An examination of ‘visual metaphors’ used to represent entrepreneurship in textbooks. In Neergaard

Leitch

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research techniques and analysis in entrepreneurship (pp. 139–169).Edward Elgar Publishing.

81.

Smith

(2015b). Seeing the light: Using visual ethnography in family business settings. Family Business Review 28(1), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486513504585

82.

Smith

Anderson

A. R.

(2007). Recognizing meaning: Semiotics in entrepreneurial research. In Neergaard

Parm Ulhøi

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship (pp. 169–192). Edward Elgar.

83.

Spencer

(2010). Visual research methods in the social sciences: Awakening visions. Routledge.

84.

Streeter

Jaquette

Hovis

(2002). University-wide entrepreneurship education: Alternative models and current trends. In IDEAS working paper series from RePEc.

85.

Trent

Cho

(2014). Interpretation strategies: Appropriate concepts. In Leavy

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 639–657). Oxford University Press.

86.

Verduijn

(2018). Moving entrepreneurship. In Berglund

Verduy

(Eds.), Revitalizing entrepreneurship education: Adopting a critical approach in the classroom (pp. 199–210). Routledge.

87.

Volkmann

(2004). Entrepreneurship studies – an ascending academic discipline in the twenty-first century. Higher Education in Europe, 29(2), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/0379772042000234802

88.

Wang

(2020). Entrepreneurial narratives and concept teaching and learning. Industry and Higher Education, 34(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219878986

89.

Warren

(2005). Images of entrepreneurship: Still searching for the hero? The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6(4), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000005775179838

90.

Watt

Wakefield

(2014). Picture it! The use of visual methods in psychology teaching. Psychology Teaching Review, 20(1), 68–77.

91.

Welter

(2019). The power of words and images: Towards talking about and seeing entrepreneurship and innovation differently. In Audretsch

D. B.

Lehmann

E. E.

Link

A. N.

(Eds.), A research agenda for entrepreneurship and innovation (pp. 179–196). Edward Elgar Publishing.

92.

West

G. P.

Gatewood

E. J.

Shaver

K. G.

(2009). Legitimacy across the university: Yet another entrepreneurial challenge. In West

G. P.

Gatewood

E. J.

Shaver

K. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of university-wide entrepreneruship education (pp. 1–11). Edward Elgar Publishing.

In the Eye of the Beholder: Visualising Students’ Implicit Entrepreneurship Theories

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Visual-Based Methods in Education

“Images of Entrepreneurship”––A Visual-Based Teaching Exercise

Implicit Theories

Developing a Theoretical Framework for Implicit Entrepreneurship Theories

Method

Students’ Views

Analysis and Discussion

Emotional and Cognitive Processes

Self-Awareness and Social Awareness

Bringing Students’ Implicit Entrepreneurship Theories Forward in Educational Settings

Further Research Directions

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Correction (May 2024):

Ethical Approval

Informed Consent

ORCID iD

References